Khaireddine Ben Mansour1, Nasser Rezzoug2, Philippe Gorce2. 1. Handibio - EA4322 - Université de Toulon, Toulon - Var, 83957 La Garde Cedex, France. Electronic address: khaireddine.ben-mansour@univ-tln.fr. 2. Handibio - EA4322 - Université de Toulon, Toulon - Var, 83957 La Garde Cedex, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to determine which types of inertial sensors and which advocated locations should be used for reliable and accurate gait event detection and temporal parameter assessment in normal adults. In addition, we aimed to remove the ambiguity found in the literature of the definition of the initial contact (IC) from the lumbar accelerometer. Acceleration and angular velocity data was gathered from the lumbar region and the distal edge of each shank. This data was evaluated in comparison to an instrumented treadmill and an optoelectronic system during five treadmill speed sessions. RESULTS: The lumbar accelerometer showed that the peak of the anteroposterior component was the most accurate for IC detection. Similarly, the valley that followed the peak of the vertical component was the most precise for terminal contact (TC) detection. Results based on ANOVA and Tukey tests showed that the set of inertial methods was suitable for temporal gait assessment and gait event detection in able-bodied subjects. For gait event detection, an exception was found with the shank accelerometer. The tool was suitable for temporal parameters assessment, despite the high root mean square error on the detection of IC (RMSEIC) and TC (RMSETC). The shank gyroscope was found to be as accurate as the kinematic method since the statistical tests revealed no significant difference between the two techniques for the RMSE off all gait events and temporal parameters. CONCLUSION: The lumbar and shank accelerometers were the most accurate alternative to the shank gyroscope for gait event detection and temporal parameters assessment, respectively.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to determine which types of inertial sensors and which advocated locations should be used for reliable and accurate gait event detection and temporal parameter assessment in normal adults. In addition, we aimed to remove the ambiguity found in the literature of the definition of the initial contact (IC) from the lumbar accelerometer. Acceleration and angular velocity data was gathered from the lumbar region and the distal edge of each shank. This data was evaluated in comparison to an instrumented treadmill and an optoelectronic system during five treadmill speed sessions. RESULTS: The lumbar accelerometer showed that the peak of the anteroposterior component was the most accurate for IC detection. Similarly, the valley that followed the peak of the vertical component was the most precise for terminal contact (TC) detection. Results based on ANOVA and Tukey tests showed that the set of inertial methods was suitable for temporal gait assessment and gait event detection in able-bodied subjects. For gait event detection, an exception was found with the shank accelerometer. The tool was suitable for temporal parameters assessment, despite the high root mean square error on the detection of IC (RMSEIC) and TC (RMSETC). The shank gyroscope was found to be as accurate as the kinematic method since the statistical tests revealed no significant difference between the two techniques for the RMSE off all gait events and temporal parameters. CONCLUSION: The lumbar and shank accelerometers were the most accurate alternative to the shank gyroscope for gait event detection and temporal parameters assessment, respectively.
Authors: George Roussos; Teresa Ruiz Herrero; Derek L Hill; Ariel V Dowling; Martijn L T M Müller; Luc J W Evers; Jackson Burton; Adrian Derungs; Katherine Fisher; Krishna Praneeth Kilambi; Nitin Mehrotra; Roopal Bhatnagar; Sakshi Sardar; Diane Stephenson; Jamie L Adams; E Ray Dorsey; Josh Cosman Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-07-15
Authors: Dylan Kobsar; Jesse M Charlton; Calvin T F Tse; Jean-Francois Esculier; Angelo Graffos; Natasha M Krowchuk; Daniel Thatcher; Michael A Hunt Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Harry J Witchel; Cäcilia Oberndorfer; Robert Needham; Aoife Healy; Carina E I Westling; Joseph H Guppy; Jake Bush; Jens Barth; Chantal Herberz; Daniel Roggen; Björn M Eskofier; Waqar Rashid; Nachiappan Chockalingam; Jochen Klucken Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 4.003