| Literature DB >> 22969392 |
Emil Olsen1, Pia Haubro Andersen, Thilo Pfau.
Abstract
The increased variations of temporal gait events when pathology is present are good candidate features for objective diagnostic tests. We hypothesised that the gait events hoof-on/off and stance can be detected accurately and precisely using features from trunk and distal limb-mounted Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). Four IMUs were mounted on the distal limb and five IMUs were attached to the skin over the dorsal spinous processes at the withers, fourth lumbar vertebrae and sacrum as well as left and right tuber coxae. IMU data were synchronised to a force plate array and a motion capture system. Accuracy (bias) and precision (SD of bias) was calculated to compare force plate and IMU timings for gait events. Data were collected from seven horses. One hundred and twenty three (123) front limb steps were analysed; hoof-on was detected with a bias (SD) of -7 (23) ms, hoof-off with 0.7 (37) ms and front limb stance with -0.02 (37) ms. A total of 119 hind limb steps were analysed; hoof-on was found with a bias (SD) of -4 (25) ms, hoof-off with 6 (21) ms and hind limb stance with 0.2 (28) ms. IMUs mounted on the distal limbs and sacrum can detect gait events accurately and precisely.Entities:
Keywords: Inertial Magnetic Measurement Unit; Inertial Measurement Units; accuracy; gait events; horse; locomotion; method comparison; precision; stride segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22969392 PMCID: PMC3436021 DOI: 10.3390/s120608145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Distal limb mounted IMUs strapped onto a standard protective boot using Velcro. The IMUs are connected in series to two XBus Masters on the right side of the horse. The XBus Masters are plugged into a laptop mounted on the left side of the horse. Reflective markers are placed on the proximal dorsal and lateral hoof of each leg and on each of the IMUs.
Figure 2.Example of gait event detection algorithm. This figure illustrates how the algorithms extract gait events from distal metatarsal IMU features. The red line is the cranio-caudal displacement of the IMU (displacement data multiplied by 30 and plotted on the acceleration axis) where the positive peaks (black dots) are guidelines for the approximate time of hoof-on. The negative peaks (red dots) are guidelines for the approximate time of hoof-off. The black interrupted vertical lines illustrate the timing for hoof-on based on force plates and the purple interrupted lines are the timing for hoof-off based on force plates. The negative peaks (red dots) on the blue cranio-caudal acceleration are matching hoof-on and are easily extracted as absolute local minima whereas the positive peaks (black dots) on the blue cranio-caudal acceleration are matching hoof-off, and can be extracted as the first local positive peak around the negative peak in displacement.
Results from agreement analysis and descriptive statistics for front limb gait events. Displaying the three algorithms with the best (smallest) accuracy and precision, all based on features from DMC /DMT mounted IMUs . All values are in ms. Values in bold have the best (smallest) accuracy and precision. The full table can be accessed online as supplementary material.
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XYZ Acceleration magnitude | −7.46 | 18.33 | 5.44 | 0.9993 | 28 | 2.90 | 32.30 | |
| Vertical Velocity | −16.31 | 10.84 | −2.73 | 0.9995 | −20 | 2.98 | 33.20 | |
|
| ||||||||
| XYZ Acceleration magnitude | −16.46 | 14.41 | −1.02 | 0.9994 | 5 | 3.53 | 39.20 | |
| Horizontal acceleration | −14.36 | 16.78 | 1.21 | 0.9994 | 5 | 3.59 | 39.84 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Hoof on; Horizontal velocity | −77.06 | 76.31 | -0.38 | 0.8384 | 8 | 3.54 | 39.09 | |
| Hoof on; Horizontal velocityHoof off; Latero-medial pitch | −73.71 | 73.30 | −0.21 | 0.8515 | 12 | 3.40 | 37.55 | |
DMC: Distal MetaCarpus
Distal MetaTarsus
IMUs: Inertial Measurement Units
Lower limits of agreement
Upper limits of agreement
Intra Class Correlation
Before rotation
Before rotation, wavelet decomposed.
Results from agreement analysis and descriptive statistics for hind limb gait events. Displaying the three algorithms with the best (smallest) accuracy and precision, all based on features from DMC /DMT mounted IMUs . All values are in ms. Values in bold have the best (smallest) accuracy and precision. The full table can be accessed online as supplementary material.
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizontal acceleration | −11.33 | 9.88 | −0.73 | 0.9998 | −5 | 2.45 | 26.60 | |
| Vertical acceleration | −16.52 | 4.03 | −6.25 | 0.9994 | −30 | 2.38 | 25.89 | |
|
| ||||||||
| XYZ velocity magnitude | −3.69 | 15.98 | 6.15 | 0.9995 | 35 | 2.32 | 25.03 | |
| Horizontal acceleration | −5.91 | 11.48 | 2.78 | 0.9998 | 20 | 2.05 | 22.04 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Hoof-on: Vertical acceleration | −54.39 | 54.66 | 0.13 | 0.9078 | 2 | 2.60 | 27.91 | |
| Hoof-on: Horizontal acceleration | −56.56 | 56.90 | 0.17 | 0.8971 | −2 | 2.67 | 28.67 | |
DMC: Distal MetaCarpus
Distal MetaTarsus
IMUs: Inertial Measurement Units
Lower limits of agreement
Upper limits of agreement
Intra Class Correlation
Before rotation
Before rotation, wavelet decomposed
After rotation, before filtering.