Literature DB >> 30170137

Analysis of the performance of 17 algorithms from a systematic review: Influence of sensor position, analysed variable and computational approach in gait timing estimation from IMU measurements.

Giulia Pacini Panebianco1, Maria Cristina Bisi2, Rita Stagni3, Silvia Fantozzi4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quantification of gait temporal parameters (i.e. step time, stance time) is crucial in human motion analysis and requires the accurate identification of gait events (i.e. heel strike, toe off). With the widespread use of inertial wearable sensors, many algorithms were proposed and applied for the purpose. Nevertheless, only few studies addressed the assessment of the actual performance of these algorithms, rather considering each proposed algorithm as a whole. RESEARCH QUESTION: How different implementation characteristics influence the assessment of gait events and temporal parameters from inertial sensor measures in terms of accuracy and repeatability?
METHODS: Seventeen different algorithms were identified from a systematic review and classified based on: 1) sensor position, 2) target variable, 3) computational approach. The influence of these characteristics was analysed on walking data of 35 healthy volunteers mounting 5 tri-axial inertial sensors. Foot contact events identified by 2 force platforms were assumed as gold standard. Temporal parameters were calculated from gait events. Algorithm performance was analysed in terms of accuracy (error median value) and repeatability (error 25th and 75th percentile values).
RESULTS: Shank- and foot-based algorithms performed better (in terms of accuracy and repeatability) in gait events detection and stance time estimation than lower trunk-based ones, while sensor position did not affect step estimate, given the error bias characteristics. Angular velocity-based algorithms performed significantly better than acceleration-based ones for toe off detection in terms of repeatability (68 ms and 102 ms, 25th-75th percentile error range, respectively) and, for heel strike detection, showed better repeatability (40 ms and 111 ms) and comparable accuracy (65 ms and 60 ms median error, respectively) than acceleration-based ones. The performance of different computational approaches varied depending on sensor positioning. SIGNIFICANCE: Present results support the selection of the proper algorithm for the estimation of gait events and temporal parameters in relation to the specific application.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Algorithm; Gait; Gait events; Inertial wearable sensors; Temporal parameters

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30170137     DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  21 in total

1.  Agreement between the GAITRite® System and the Wearable Sensor BTS G-Walk® for measurement of gait parameters in healthy adults and Parkinson's disease patients.

Authors:  Slávka Vítečková; Hana Horáková; Kamila Poláková; Radim Krupička; Evžen Růžička; Hana Brožová
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Gait Variability Using Waist- and Ankle-Worn Inertial Measurement Units in Healthy Older Adults.

Authors:  Timo Rantalainen; Laura Karavirta; Henrikki Pirkola; Taina Rantanen; Vesa Linnamo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Quantitative analysis of the bilateral coordination and gait asymmetry using inertial measurement unit-based gait analysis.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Han; Chang Oh Kim; Kwang Joon Kim; Jeanhong Jeon; Hsienhao Chang; Eun Seo Kim; Hoon Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A Personalized Approach to Improve Walking Detection in Real-Life Settings: Application to Children with Cerebral Palsy.

Authors:  Lena Carcreff; Anisoara Paraschiv-Ionescu; Corinna N Gerber; Christopher J Newman; Stéphane Armand; Kamiar Aminian
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Augmenting Clinical Outcome Measures of Gait and Balance with a Single Inertial Sensor in Age-Ranged Healthy Adults.

Authors:  Megan K O'Brien; Marco D Hidalgo-Araya; Chaithanya K Mummidisetty; Heike Vallery; Roozbeh Ghaffari; John A Rogers; Richard Lieber; Arun Jayaraman
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  Comparison of Walking Protocols and Gait Assessment Systems for Machine Learning-Based Classification of Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Rana Zia Ur Rehman; Silvia Del Din; Jian Qing Shi; Brook Galna; Sue Lord; Alison J Yarnall; Yu Guan; Lynn Rochester
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 3.576

7.  Intra-subject approach for gait-event prediction by neural network interpretation of EMG signals.

Authors:  Francesco Di Nardo; Christian Morbidoni; Guido Mascia; Federica Verdini; Sandro Fioretti
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 2.819

8.  Comparison of Trotting Stance Detection Methods from an Inertial Measurement Unit Mounted on the Horse's Limb.

Authors:  Marie Sapone; Pauline Martin; Khalil Ben Mansour; Henry Château; Frédéric Marin
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 3.576

9.  Agreement of Gait Events Detection during Treadmill Backward Walking by Kinematic Data and Inertial Motion Units.

Authors:  Uri Gottlieb; Tharani Balasukumaran; Jay R Hoffman; Shmuel Springer
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 3.576

10.  An Objective Methodology for the Selection of a Device for Continuous Mobility Assessment.

Authors:  Tecla Bonci; Alison Keogh; Silvia Del Din; Kirsty Scott; Claudia Mazzà
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.