BACKGROUND: Assessments of human movement are clinically important. However, accurate measurements are often unavailable due to the need for expensive equipment or intensive processing. For orthotists and therapists, shank-to-vertical angle is one critical measure used to assess gait and guide prescriptions. Smartphone-based sensors may provide a widely available platform to expand access to this measurement. OBJECTIVES: Assess accuracy and repeatability of smartphone-based measurement of shank-to-vertical angle compared to marker-based 3D motion analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated-measures. METHODS: Four licensed clinicians (two physical therapists and two orthotists) measured shank-to-vertical angle during gait with a smartphone attached to the anterior or lateral shank surface of unimpaired adults. We compared the shank-to-vertical angle calculated from the smartphone's inertial measurement unit to marker-based measurements. Each clinician completed three sessions/day on two days with each participant to assess repeatability. RESULTS: Average absolute differences in shank-to-vertical angle measured with a smartphone versus marker-based 3D motion analysis during gait were 0.67 ± 0.25° and 4.89 ± 0.72°, with anterior or lateral smartphone positions, respectively. The inter- and intra-day repeatability of shank-to-vertical angle were within 2° for both smartphone positions. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone sensors can be used to measure shank-to-vertical angle with high accuracy and repeatability during unimpaired gait, providing a widely available tool for quantitative gait assessments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Smartphone sensors demonstrated high accuracy and repeatability for monitoring shank-to-vertical angle during gait. Measurement of shank-to-vertical angle from the front of the shank was more accurate than the side of the shank. Smartphones may expand access to quantitative assessments of gait.
BACKGROUND: Assessments of human movement are clinically important. However, accurate measurements are often unavailable due to the need for expensive equipment or intensive processing. For orthotists and therapists, shank-to-vertical angle is one critical measure used to assess gait and guide prescriptions. Smartphone-based sensors may provide a widely available platform to expand access to this measurement. OBJECTIVES: Assess accuracy and repeatability of smartphone-based measurement of shank-to-vertical angle compared to marker-based 3D motion analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated-measures. METHODS: Four licensed clinicians (two physical therapists and two orthotists) measured shank-to-vertical angle during gait with a smartphone attached to the anterior or lateral shank surface of unimpaired adults. We compared the shank-to-vertical angle calculated from the smartphone's inertial measurement unit to marker-based measurements. Each clinician completed three sessions/day on two days with each participant to assess repeatability. RESULTS: Average absolute differences in shank-to-vertical angle measured with a smartphone versus marker-based 3D motion analysis during gait were 0.67 ± 0.25° and 4.89 ± 0.72°, with anterior or lateral smartphone positions, respectively. The inter- and intra-day repeatability of shank-to-vertical angle were within 2° for both smartphone positions. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone sensors can be used to measure shank-to-vertical angle with high accuracy and repeatability during unimpaired gait, providing a widely available tool for quantitative gait assessments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Smartphone sensors demonstrated high accuracy and repeatability for monitoring shank-to-vertical angle during gait. Measurement of shank-to-vertical angle from the front of the shank was more accurate than the side of the shank. Smartphones may expand access to quantitative assessments of gait.
Authors: P Salvia; S Van Sint Jan; A Crouan; L Vanderkerken; F Moiseev; V Sholukha; C Mahieu; O Snoeck; M Rooze Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Steven Milanese; Susan Gordon; Petra Buettner; Carol Flavell; Sally Ruston; Damien Coe; William O'Sullivan; Steven McCormack Journal: Man Ther Date: 2014-06-04
Authors: Hans Kainz; David Graham; Julie Edwards; Henry P J Walsh; Sheanna Maine; Roslyn N Boyd; David G Lloyd; Luca Modenese; Christopher P Carty Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Megan Banky; Ross A Clark; Benjamin F Mentiplay; John H Olver; Michelle B Kahn; Gavin Williams Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Lysanne A F de Jong; Yvette L Kerkum; Tom de Groot; Marije Vos-van der Hulst; Ilse J W van Nes; Noel L W Keijsers Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.576