Literature DB >> 33609984

Low-pass filter cutoff frequency affects sacral-mounted inertial measurement unit estimations of peak vertical ground reaction force and contact time during treadmill running.

Evan M Day1, Ryan S Alcantara2, Michael A McGeehan1, Alena M Grabowski2, Michael E Hahn3.   

Abstract

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are popular tools for estimating biomechanical variables such as peak vertical ground reaction force (GRFv) and foot-ground contact time (tc), often by using multiple sensors or predictive models. Despite their growing use, little is known about the effects of varying low-pass filter cutoff frequency, which can affect the magnitude of force-related dependent variables, the accuracy of IMU-derived metrics, or if simpler methods for such estimations exist. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of varying low-pass filter cutoff frequency on the correlation of IMU-derived peak GRFv and tc to gold-standard lab-based measurements. Thirty National Collegiate Athletics Association Division 1 cross country runners ran on an instrumented treadmill at a range of speeds while outfitted with a sacral-mounted IMU. A simple method for estimating peak GRFv from the IMU was implemented by multiplying the IMU's vertical acceleration by the runner's body mass. Data from the IMU were low-pass filtered with 5, 10, and 30 Hz cutoffs. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine how well the IMU-derived estimates matched gold-standard biomechanical estimations. Correlations ranged from very weak to moderate for peak GRFv and tc. For peak GRFv, the 10 Hz low-pass filter cutoff performed best (r = 0.638), while for tc the 5 Hz cut-off performed best (r = 0.656). These results suggest that IMU-derived estimates of force and contact time are influenced by the low-pass filter cutoff frequency. Further investigations are needed to determine the optimal low-pass filter cutoff frequency or a different method to accurately estimate force and contact time is suggested.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometer; Injury; Pelvis; Sensor; Wearable

Year:  2021        PMID: 33609984     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  6 in total

1.  Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Units on Lower Extremity Kinematics During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ziwei Zeng; Yue Liu; Xiaoyue Hu; Meihua Tang; Lin Wang
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2022-06-27

2.  Validation of Running Gait Event Detection Algorithms in a Semi-Uncontrolled Environment.

Authors:  Seth R Donahue; Michael E Hahn
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 3.847

3.  Sacral acceleration can predict whole-body kinetics and stride kinematics across running speeds.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; Evan M Day; Michael E Hahn; Alena M Grabowski
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Predicting continuous ground reaction forces from accelerometers during uphill and downhill running: a recurrent neural network solution.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; W Brent Edwards; Guillaume Y Millet; Alena M Grabowski
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  A Single Sacral-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit to Estimate Peak Vertical Ground Reaction Force, Contact Time, and Flight Time in Running.

Authors:  Aurélien Patoz; Thibault Lussiana; Bastiaan Breine; Cyrille Gindre; Davide Malatesta
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 6.  Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis.

Authors:  Lauren C Benson; Anu M Räisänen; Christian A Clermont; Reed Ferber
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.