| Literature DB >> 27271634 |
Phuc Huu Truong1, Jinwook Lee2, Ae-Ran Kwon3, Gu-Min Jeong4.
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel method of estimating walking distance based on a precise counting of walking strides using insole sensors. We use an inertial triaxial accelerometer and eight pressure sensors installed in the insole of a shoe to record walkers' movement data. The data is then transmitted to a smartphone to filter out noise and determine stance and swing phases. Based on phase information, we count the number of strides traveled and estimate the movement distance. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed method, we created two walking databases on seven healthy participants and tested the proposed method. The first database, which is called the short distance database, consists of collected data from all seven healthy subjects walking on a 16 m distance. The second one, named the long distance database, is constructed from walking data of three healthy subjects who have participated in the short database for an 89 m distance. The experimental results show that the proposed method performs walking distance estimation accurately with the mean error rates of 4.8% and 3.1% for the short and long distance databases, respectively. Moreover, the maximum difference of the swing phase determination with respect to time is 0.08 s and 0.06 s for starting and stopping points of swing phases, respectively. Therefore, the stride counting method provides a highly precise result when subjects walk.Entities:
Keywords: gait monitoring; insole sensors; walking distance
Year: 2016 PMID: 27271634 PMCID: PMC4934249 DOI: 10.3390/s16060823
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of walking distance estimation approaches.
| Approach | Author | Assumption | Method | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body attaching | Shin | - Pedestrians walk or run | - Using biaxial accelerometer and gyroscope sensors | - Accuracy of step length estimation for walking cases is 95%, 96% and 96% for slow, normal, and fast walking, respectively |
| Shih | - Users walk normally in a straight line with average distance of 664.5 cm. | - Using one triaxial accelerometer and one gyroscope sensor from a smartphone | - Accuracy of distance estimation based on attaching the smartphone on the waist is 97.35%. | |
| Ankle attaching | Wang | - Users walk along the outside of a sports area that is 559 m long | - Using a triaxial acceleration data to analyze gait and estimate the step velocity | - Accuracy of walking distance estimation is 96.42% |
| Leg attaching | Bennett | - Subjects walk in a straight line with average distance of 3.55 m | - Modeling human leg as a two-link revolute robot, then using Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to estimate the displacement in a straight line | - EKF distance estimation had an average error of 2% |
| Shoe attaching | Alvarez | - Subjects walk in a 10 m straight distance | - Using a biaxial accelerometer and a gyroscope sensor | - Mean estimation error rate is 10% with a single sensor module attached on one foot |
| Wang | - Three subjects perform two sets of 40 m level walking, 10-step stair ascending and 10-step stair descending | - Using double integral of acceleration to estimate walking distance | - Absolute error of | |
| Meng | - Subjects walk in a straight line for 10 m | - Using a module containing a triaxial accelerometer, a triaxial gyroscope sensor and a triaxial magnetometer | - Position error is 0.44 m ± 0.2 m for short distance (4.4%). |
Figure 1Analyzing phases of the gait cycle.
Figure 2Design of the insole sensor module.
Figure 3Fusing sensors’ values.
Figure 4Diagram of data processing in the estimation system.
Figure 5Swing phase determination based on pressure information.
Figure 6Proposed calculation algorithm.
Figure 7Original acceleration data.
Figure 8Extracting filtered acceleration data using pressure-based filter.
Baseline of individuals.
| Subject | Height | Age | Sex | Short Distance | Long Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | 163 cm | 23 | Male | ✓ | ✓ |
| #2 | 165 cm | 23 | Male | ✓ | ✓ |
| #3 | 168 cm | 28 | Male | ✓ | ✓ |
| #4 | 175 cm | 24 | Male | ✓ | |
| #5 | 185 cm | 26 | Male | ✓ | |
| #6 | 160 cm | 22 | Female | ✓ | |
| #7 | 162 cm | 26 | Female | ✓ |
Figure 9Gait velocities of subjects in experiments. (a) short distance database; (b) long distance database.
Figure 10Determination of swing phases on a walking sample.
Estimated values using the proposed method.
| Distance | Subject | Mean (m) | Median (m) | Min (m) | Max (m) | SD (m) | Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| short (16 m) | #1 | 16.4 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 17.1 | 0.3 | 2.2% |
| #2 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 14.4 | 16.6 | 0.6 | 4.5% | |
| #3 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 17.3 | 0.4 | 6.7% | |
| #4 | 15.7 | 15.4 | 13.9 | 17.3 | 1.4 | 8.0% | |
| #5 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 15.5 | 18.8 | 1.0 | 7.1% | |
| #6 | 15.3 | 15.3 | 14.9 | 15.7 | 0.2 | 4.5% | |
| #7 | 16.1 | 15.7 | 15.2 | 19.2 | 1.0 | 3.9% | |
| All | 16.0 | 15.9 | 13.5 | 19.7 | 1.0 | 4.8% | |
| long (89 m) | #1 | 88.4 | 88.4 | 87.4 | 89.4 | 0.7 | 0.8% |
| #2 | 93.0 | 92.9 | 91.1 | 94.6 | 1.1 | 4.5% | |
| #3 | 85.6 | 85.7 | 83.3 | 87.3 | 1.4 | 3.9% | |
| All | 89.0 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 94.5 | 3.2 | 3.1% |
Comparison with other methods.
| Distance | Criterion | [ | [ | Proposed Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| short (16 m) | Error | 17.5% | 9.9% | 4.8% |
| SD | 20.4% | 13.1% | 6.6% | |
| long (89 m) | Error | 10.4% | 7.2% | 3.1% |
| SD | 12.3% | 8.8% | 3.6% |