Lucia Pepa1, Federica Verdini2, Luca Spalazzi3. 1. Department of Information Engineering, Politecnica delle Marche University Ancona, AN, Italy. Electronic address: l.pepa@univpm.it. 2. Department of Information Engineering, Politecnica delle Marche University Ancona, AN, Italy. Electronic address: f.verdini@univpm.it. 3. Department of Information Engineering, Politecnica delle Marche University Ancona, AN, Italy. Electronic address: l.spalazzi@univpm.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of smartphones can greatly help for gait parameters estimation during daily living, but its accuracy needs a deeper evaluation against a gold standard. The objective of the paper is a step-by-step assessment of smartphone performance in heel strike, step count, step period, and step length estimation. The influence of smartphone placement and orientation on estimation performance is evaluated as well. METHODS: This work relies on a smartphone app developed to acquire, process, and store inertial sensor data and rotation matrices about device position. Smartphone alignment was evaluated by expressing the acceleration vector in three reference frames. Two smartphone placements were tested. Three methods for heel strike detection were considered. On the basis of estimated heel strikes, step count is performed, step period is obtained, and the inverted pendulum model is applied for step length estimation. Pearson correlation coefficient, absolute and relative errors, ANOVA, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to compare smartphone estimation with stereophotogrammetry on eleven healthy subjects. RESULTS: High correlations were found between smartphone and stereophotogrammetric measures: up to 0.93 for step count, to 0.99 for heel strike, 0.96 for step period, and 0.92 for step length. Error ranges are comparable to those in the literature. Smartphone placement did not affect the performance. The major influence of acceleration reference frames and heel strike detection method was found in step count. CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed information about expected accuracy when smartphone is used as a gait monitoring tool. The obtained results encourage real life applications.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of smartphones can greatly help for gait parameters estimation during daily living, but its accuracy needs a deeper evaluation against a gold standard. The objective of the paper is a step-by-step assessment of smartphone performance in heel strike, step count, step period, and step length estimation. The influence of smartphone placement and orientation on estimation performance is evaluated as well. METHODS: This work relies on a smartphone app developed to acquire, process, and store inertial sensor data and rotation matrices about device position. Smartphone alignment was evaluated by expressing the acceleration vector in three reference frames. Two smartphone placements were tested. Three methods for heel strike detection were considered. On the basis of estimated heel strikes, step count is performed, step period is obtained, and the inverted pendulum model is applied for step length estimation. Pearson correlation coefficient, absolute and relative errors, ANOVA, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to compare smartphone estimation with stereophotogrammetry on eleven healthy subjects. RESULTS: High correlations were found between smartphone and stereophotogrammetric measures: up to 0.93 for step count, to 0.99 for heel strike, 0.96 for step period, and 0.92 for step length. Error ranges are comparable to those in the literature. Smartphone placement did not affect the performance. The major influence of acceleration reference frames and heel strike detection method was found in step count. CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed information about expected accuracy when smartphone is used as a gait monitoring tool. The obtained results encourage real life applications.
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ralph Jasper Mobbs; Jordan Perring; Suresh Mahendra Raj; Monish Maharaj; Nicole Kah Mun Yoong; Luke Wicent Sy; Rannulu Dineth Fonseka; Pragadesh Natarajan; Wen Jie Choy Journal: Mhealth Date: 2022-01-20
Authors: William Johnston; Pedro B Judice; Pablo Molina García; Jan M Mühlen; Esben Lykke Skovgaard; Julie Stang; Moritz Schumann; Shulin Cheng; Wilhelm Bloch; Jan Christian Brønd; Ulf Ekelund; Anders Grøntved; Brian Caulfield; Francisco B Ortega; Luis B Sardinha Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Marco Avvenuti; Nicola Carbonaro; Mario G C A Cimino; Guglielmo Cola; Alessandro Tognetti; Gigliola Vaglini Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 3.576
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