Literature DB >> 18688763

The static accuracy and calibration of inertial measurement units for 3D orientation.

M A Brodie1, A Walmsley, W Page.   

Abstract

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are integrated electronic devices that contain accelerometers, magnetometers and gyroscopes. Wearable motion capture systems based on IMUs have been advertised as alternatives to optical motion capture. In this paper, the accuracy of five different IMUs of the same type in measuring 3D orientation in static situations, as well as the calibration of the accelerometers and magnetometers within the IMUs, has been investigated. The maximum absolute static orientation error was 5.2 degrees , higher than the 1 degrees claimed by the vendor. If the IMUs are re-calibrated at the time of measurement with the re-calibration procedure described in this paper, it is possible to obtain an error of less than 1 degrees , in agreement with the vendor's specifications (XSens Technologies B.V. 2005. Motion tracker technical documentation Mtx-B. Version 1.03. Available from: www.xsens.com). The new calibration appears to be valid for at least 22 days providing the sensor is not exposed to high impacts. However, if several sensors are 'daisy chained' together changes to the magnetometer bias can cause heading errors of up to 15 degrees . The results demonstrate the non-linear relationship between the vendor's orthogonality claim of < 0.1 degrees and the accuracy of 3D orientation obtained from factory calibrated IMUs in static situations. The authors hypothesise that the high magnetic dip (64 degrees ) in our laboratory may have exacerbated the errors reported. For biomechanical research, small relative movements of a body segment from a calibrated position are likely to be more accurate than large scale global motion that may have an error of up to 9.8 degrees .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18688763     DOI: 10.1080/10255840802326736

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin        ISSN: 1025-5842            Impact factor:   1.763


  14 in total

1.  Can a rescuer or simulated patient accurately assess motion during cervical spine stabilization practice sessions?

Authors:  Ian Shrier; Patrick Boissy; Simon Brière; Jay Mellette; Luc Fecteau; Gordon O Matheson; Daniel Garza; Willem H Meeuwisse; Eli Segal; John Boulay; Russell J Steele
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Determination of the 3D Human Spine Posture from Wearable Inertial Sensors and a Multibody Model of the Spine.

Authors:  Florian Michaud; Urbano Lugrís; Javier Cuadrado
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.847

3.  Autonomous Quality Control of Joint Orientation Measured with Inertial Sensors.

Authors:  Karina Lebel; Patrick Boissy; Hung Nguyen; Christian Duval
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  The Use of IMMUs in a Water Environment: Instrument Validation and Application of 3D Multi-Body Kinematic Analysis in Medicine and Sport.

Authors:  Anna Lisa Mangia; Matteo Cortesi; Silvia Fantozzi; Andrea Giovanardi; Davide Borra; Giorgio Gatta
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Wearable Inertial Sensors to Assess Gait during the 6-Minute Walk Test: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Fabio Alexander Storm; Ambra Cesareo; Gianluigi Reni; Emilia Biffi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

Authors:  Justin W L Keogh; Alistair Cox; Sarah Anderson; Bernard Liew; Alicia Olsen; Ben Schram; James Furness
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Three dimensional gait analysis using wearable acceleration and gyro sensors based on quaternion calculations.

Authors:  Shigeru Tadano; Ryo Takeda; Hiroaki Miyagawa
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Inertial measures of motion for clinical biomechanics: comparative assessment of accuracy under controlled conditions - effect of velocity.

Authors:  Karina Lebel; Patrick Boissy; Mathieu Hamel; Christian Duval
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Drift removal for improving the accuracy of gait parameters using wearable sensor systems.

Authors:  Ryo Takeda; Giulia Lisco; Tadashi Fujisawa; Laura Gastaldi; Harukazu Tohyama; Shigeru Tadano
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.576

10.  On the Orientation Error of IMU: Investigating Static and Dynamic Accuracy Targeting Human Motion.

Authors:  Luca Ricci; Fabrizio Taffoni; Domenico Formica
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.