Cited by 102Gait Recognition and AnalysisContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Multiple-wearable-sensor-based gait classification and analysis in patients with neurological disorders

Open access
Hsu, Wei-Chun, Sugiarto, Tommy, Lin, Yi-Jia, Yang, Fu-Chi, Lin, Zheng-Yi, Sun, Chi-Tien, Hsu, Chun-Lung, Chou, Kuan-Nien·2018·Sensors

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the placement of multiple wearable sensors for the purpose of analyzing and classifying the gaits of patients with neurological disorders. Seven inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors were placed at seven locations: the lower back (L5) and both sides of the thigh, distal tibia (shank), and foot. The 20 subjects selected to participate in this study were separated into two groups: stroke patients (11) and patients with neurological disorders other than stroke (brain concussion, spinal injury, or brain hemorrhage) (9). The temporal parameters of gait were calculated using a wearable device, and various features and sensor configurations were examined to establish the ideal accuracy for classifying different groups. A comparison of the various methods and features for classifying the three groups revealed that a combination of time domain and gait temporal feature-based classification with the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) algorithm outperformed the other methods of feature-based classification. The classification results of different sensor placements revealed that the sensor placed on the shank achieved higher accuracy than the other sensor placements (L5, foot, and thigh). The placement-based classification of the shank sensor achieved 89.13% testing accuracy with the Decision Tree (DT) classifier algorithm. The results of this study indicate that the wearable IMU device is capable of differentiating between the gait patterns of healthy patients, patients with stroke, and patients with other neurological disorders. Moreover, the most favorable results were reported for the classification that used the combination of time domain and gait temporal features as the model input and the shank location for sensor placement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s18103397

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some movement classification systems distinguish between normal and abnormal gaits for lower-limb rehabilitation, with participants executing 10 m walks.

    “Some researchers implemented systems to distinguish between normal and abnormal gaits for lower-limb rehabilitation [56,59,60], in which participants executed 10 m walks.”

    From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Classification section (2.6) describes a gait-classification system, but its binary classification distinguishes stroke patients from patients with other neurological disorders, rather than normal from abnormal gait. The Experimental Protocol section (2.3) says participants walked approximately 12 m, not 10 m. The Introduction mentions 10 m tests, but attributes them to other studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A single included study used the lower back.

    “and finally a single study used the lower back [59].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsu, W.-C., Sugiarto, T., Lin, Y.-J., Yang, F.-C., Lin, Z.-Y., Sun, C.-T., Hsu, C.-L., & Chou, K.-N.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (TW)
  • Tri-Service General Hospital (TW)
  • Taipei City Hospital (TW)
  • Industrial Technology Research Institute (TW)
Corresponding author
  • Hsu, Wei-Chun
  • Chou, Kuan-Nien
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-10-11
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
3397
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897218246
Cited by
101
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH-NTUST-107-04)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
gait classification, wearable sensors, inertial measurement unit, sensor placement, neurological disorders, stroke, concussion, spinal injuries, cerebral hemorrhage, time-domain features, multilayer perceptron, decision tree, gait analysis
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Aged, Algorithms, Foot, Gait, Humans, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Nervous System Diseases, Thigh, Reproducibility of Results, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review