Three-Dimensional Lower-Limb Kinematics from Accelerometers and Gyroscopes with Simple and Minimal Functional Calibration Tasks: Validation on Asymptomatic Participants

• Published in: Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Vol. 22; no. 15; p. 5657
• Main Authors: Carcreff, Lena, Payen, Gabriel, Grouvel, Gautier, Massé, Fabien, Armand, Stéphane
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 28.07.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Accelerometers; Accelerometry; Ankle; Asymptomatic; Biomechanical Phenomena; Calibration; clinical gait analysis; Data processing; Gait; gait kinematics; Human health and pathology; Humans; inertial measurement units; Kinematics; Laboratories; Life Sciences; Lower Extremity; lower limbs; Methods; Sensors; Software; tridimensional kinematics; Validity; United States > US; Sweden; lower limbs; gait kinematics; tridimensional kinematics; clinical gait analysis; inertial measurement units; Inertial measurement units; Tridimensional kinematics; Clinical gait analysis; Gait kinematics
• ISSN: 1424-8220; 1424-8220
• DOI: 10.3390/s22155657

The use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) to compute gait outputs, such as the 3D lower-limb kinematics is of huge potential, but no consensus on the procedures and algorithms exists. This study aimed at evaluating the validity of a 7-IMUs system against the optoelectronic system. Ten asymptomatic subjects were included. They wore IMUs on their feet, shanks, thighs and pelvis. The IMUs were embedded in clusters with reflective markers. Reference kinematics was computed from anatomical markers. Gait kinematics was obtained from accelerometer and gyroscope data after sensor orientation estimation and sensor-to-segment (S2S) calibration steps. The S2S calibration steps were also applied to the cluster data. IMU-based and cluster-based kinematics were compared to the reference through root mean square errors (RMSEs), centered RMSEs (after mean removal), correlation coefficients (CCs) and differences in amplitude. The mean RMSE and centered RMSE were, respectively, 7.5° and 4.0° for IMU-kinematics, and 7.9° and 3.8° for cluster-kinematics. Very good CCs were found in the sagittal plane for both IMUs and cluster-based kinematics at the hip, knee and ankle levels (CCs > 0.85). The overall mean amplitude difference was about 7°. These results reflected good accordance in our system with the reference, especially in the sagittal plane, but the presence of offsets requires caution for clinical use.