| Literature DB >> 35495059 |
Ratan Das1, Sudip Paul1, Gajendra Kumar Mourya1, Neelesh Kumar2, Masaraf Hussain3.
Abstract
The study of human movement and biomechanics forms an integral part of various clinical assessments and provides valuable information toward diagnosing neurodegenerative disorders where the motor symptoms predominate. Conventional gait and postural balance analysis techniques like force platforms, motion cameras, etc., are complex, expensive equipment requiring specialist operators, thereby posing a significant challenge toward translation to the clinics. The current manuscript presents an overview and relevant literature summarizing the umbrella of factors associated with neurodegenerative disorder management: from the pathogenesis and motor symptoms of commonly occurring disorders to current alternate practices toward its quantification and mitigation. This article reviews recent advances in technologies and methodologies for managing important neurodegenerative gait and balance disorders, emphasizing assessment and rehabilitation/assistance. The review predominantly focuses on the application of inertial sensors toward various facets of gait analysis, including event detection, spatiotemporal gait parameter measurement, estimation of joint kinematics, and postural balance analysis. In addition, the use of other sensing principles such as foot-force interaction measurement, electromyography techniques, electrogoniometers, force-myography, ultrasonic, piezoelectric, and microphone sensors has also been explored. The review also examined the commercially available wearable gait analysis systems. Additionally, a summary of recent progress in therapeutic approaches, viz., wearables, virtual reality (VR), and phytochemical compounds, has also been presented, explicitly targeting the neuro-motor and functional impairments associated with these disorders. Efforts toward therapeutic and functional rehabilitation through VR, wearables, and different phytochemical compounds are presented using recent examples of research across the commonly occurring neurodegenerative conditions [viz., Parkinson's disease (PD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease (HD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)]. Studies exploring the potential role of Phyto compounds in mitigating commonly associated neurodegenerative pathologies such as mitochondrial dysfunction, α-synuclein accumulation, imbalance of free radicals, etc., are also discussed in breadth. Parameters such as joint angles, plantar pressure, and muscle force can be measured using portable and wearable sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, footswitches, force sensors, etc. Kinetic foot insoles and inertial measurement tools are widely explored for studying kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with gait. With advanced correlation algorithms and extensive RCTs, such measurement techniques can be an effective clinical and home-based monitoring and rehabilitation tool for neuro-impaired gait. As evident from the present literature, although the vast majority of works reported are not clinically and extensively validated to derive a firm conclusion about the effectiveness of such techniques, wearable sensors present a promising impact toward dealing with neurodegenerative motor disorders.Entities:
Keywords: gait; inertial sensor; myography; neurological disorder; phytochemical; plantar pressure; postural balance; wearable sensors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35495059 PMCID: PMC9051393 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.859298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
FIGURE 1Gait phases and used terminologies to partition the phases. For the representational purpose, the gait segmentation of the right leg (ipsilateral) is described w.r.t. the left (contralateral) leg. [Image source: Li et al. (2016a), the open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license].
Comparison of NWS and WS measurement systems.
| NWS | • Accurate, precise, and repeatable measurements |
| • Free from environmental interference | |
| • Multidimensional feature sets can be extracted | |
| • No restriction of power consumption | |
| • The number of gait cycles that can be recorded depends on the dimension of equipment and room | |
| • High cost and bulky equipment confined to laboratory space | |
| • Requires comparatively higher subject preparation time and stringent protocols; often leads to biased walk from the subject | |
| • Not suitable for outdoor applications and continuous data monitoring | |
| WS | • The portable, low-cost, miniaturized system that can be easily integrated into electronic systems |
| • No need for a controlled environment; the application can be extended to indoor as well as real-life scenarios | |
| • It can be used for feedback in real-time control applications like orthosis/prosthesis control | |
| • The range of extracted gait features generally is low. However, with intelligent and powerful computing techniques, new features can be added | |
| • Requires complex data processing tools to tackle noise and external interferences | |
| • Sensor placement location and attachment is a significant issue | |
| • Restriction of power consumption |
FIGURE 2Foot mounted inertial gait pattern in the sagittal plane. (Top) the plot shows a variation of foot angle (w.r.t. ground) at TO, HS, and toes clearance during the swing phase. The negative peak of the acceleration signal determines the HS (middle plot) whereas (lower plot) TO is extracted using the zero crossing of the angular velocity signal [Image source: Schülein et al. (2017), under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License].
FIGURE 3Schematic for IMU-based gait kinematics measurement.
Inertial sensor-based gait and balance analysis: from the prospect of event detection, spatiotemporal parameter estimation, joint ROM, and balance analysis.
| Reference | Parameter(s) | Technique(s) used | Subject(s) | Calibration/validation technique | Remarks |
|
| |||||
| ( | HS and TO | One gyroscope, two linear accelerometers, peak detection, zero crossing, heuristic | 26 HC + 14 SCI + Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) | Foot switches | TO latency 50 ms, 100 ms for HS detection; obtrusive due to semi-wired connectivity |
| ( | HS and HO | Single 3-axis accelerometer at alternate/multiple positions; peak detection + HMM | 1 HC | None | Adaptive to Sensor placement |
| ( | HS and asymmetry feature | Single accelerometer placed at the lower back, peak detection | 15 HC | N/A | No specific accelerometer; The developed iGAIT tool requires manual intervention to set input pre-sets |
| ( | HS, TO, HO, and TS | Foot mounted 3D accelerometer+ gyroscope, pitch velocity, negative peak, zero crossing | 10 HC, 12 AO, 11 TAR, and 9 AA | Pedar-X Pressure Insole | −33 ± 14 for angular velocity, 81 ± 15 for acceleration |
| ( | Temporal, stride length | 4 IMU (gyroscope), Y-angular rate reversal | 6 (PD) + 7 (HC) | GAITRite, OMC | 100% event detection, SD of 6.6 ms and 11.8 ms in HC and PD |
| ( | TO | Three-axis accelerometer, wavelet decomposition | 6 HC | Foot switch | The transition between level ground and ramps |
| ( | HS and TO | Six-axis IMU, Foot angle variation, peak detection | 34 HC | FSR | Improved detection latency of 16 ms |
|
| |||||
| ( | Knee angle | One IMU (Two accelerometer + one gyro) placed at shank and thigh; virtual projection of physical sensor into rotation joint | 8 HC | OMC | Absolute angle calculation with no drift error; subject-specific modeling requires prior anatomical information |
| ( | Hip, knee, and ankle angle | 07 six-axis IMU, musculoskeletal model, trajectory optimization | 10 HC (M) | OMC | |
| ( | Hip, knee, and ankle flexion/extension | 01 accelerometer placed at foot + CNN | 10 HC (M) | OMC | RMSE <3.4% for intra-subject and <6.5% for inter subject |
|
| |||||
| ( | HS, TO, SL, and gait velocity | Two gyroscopes placed at the shank, a Double pendulum model with two gyroscopes + Fourier series, and most minor square optimization | 10 PD, 18 HC, 36 hip-replacement, and seven orthosis | OMC | Validated on a sizeable patient population with multiple disorders |
| ( | Gait phases, SL, and L | One IS on each ankle, shank, and thigh; one on the pelvis. Peak detection for events, drift reduction protocol for spatial parameters | 5 HC, 10 m walk-test | OMC | Linear drift modeling does not hold for extended walking |
| ( | SL, GCT, T | Inertial sensors, Template Search for events | 101 NW, 84 WW | GAITRite® | 0.93 and 0.95 in NW and 0.80 and 0.95 in WW for SL and GCT, respectively |
| ( | T | Foot mounted IS, peak-peak detection+ adaptive thresholding for event detection; CF+ ZUPT+ double integration for SL | 15 HC | Non-standard | 1.64 ± 0.839 for SL |
| ( | SL | 3D acceleration and angular rate, Dual-ZUPT | 14 steps | Videography | |
| ( | GCT, SL, and stride velocity | Foot mounted IMU, Medial-lateral foot angle peak detection for events; KF+ZUPT for stride length | 12 HC, 16 PD | GAITRite® | Real-time computation on a smartphone, RMSE SL = 4% |
| ( | SL | 3D Euler angle, acceleration, discrete KF, smoother | 9 HC (male adults) | OMC | −0.24 ± 1.1 cm for SL |
| ( | T | One IMU at hip; Local minima/maxima + Butterworth filter for events; IPM + Double integration for SL | 51 HC | GAITRite® | Need for additional optimization constant that is derived from GAITRite® for SL estimation |
| ( | SL | Six-axis IMU at foot dorsum; foot angle for gravity compensation and double integration of foot acceleration | 10 HC | Zebris walkway, outdoor marking | Acceleration integrated only for swing duration; compensated with foot length |
|
| |||||
| ( | 12 STP including L | 7 Xsens IS | 24 HC (12 M + 12 F) | OMC | Detection means error ∼1.6%, Step width, and swing width |
| ( | St | Five triaxial accelerometers, gyroscope, and magnetometer (LEGSys+ wearable device) placed at shank, thigh, and pelvis; self-selected walking at the 7-m walkway | 30 HC | OMC | The significant difference in hip ROM; measurement within 95% limit of agreement |
|
| |||||
| ( | CoM, postural sway rate | Three-axis accelerometer in waist | 21 PD + 50 HC | N/A | Validated on a large group; Only static balance |
| ( | TUGT | Three IMUs (1 at hip + 1 at each foot); Signature matching of lateral angular rate + thresholding | 21 AD + 25 HC | N/A | Test specific |
| ( | 10 MWT, BBS, and TUGT | One IMU at hip; FFT+ integration for static balance; Daubechies wavelet approximation for dynamic balance | 51 HC | GAITRite® | 178 features extracted for three balance assessment tests |
| ( | Two minutes standing test, inter-segmental moments, and CoP | Accelerometer + gyroscope placed at foot, leg, pelvis, and head-arms-trunk; Musculoskeletal inverse dynamics model | 10 HC | OMC+ force plates | Accelerometers alone provide reliable data for standing balance analysis |
| ( | Two minutes barefoot standing in EO, EC | 17 IMU placed at whole body; jerk index and complexity index from postural sway from pelvis accelerometer | 38 concussed patients | N/A | Single accelerometer yields information about postural sway |
HS, heel strike, TO, toe off, HC, healthy control, SCI, spinal cord injury, CMT, Charcot-Marie-Tooth, HMM, Hidden Markov Model, HO, heel off, TS, toe strike, AO, ankle orthosis, TAR, total ankle replacement, AA, ankle arthrodesis, OMC, optical motion camera, CNN, convolution neural network, CF, complementary filter, ZUPT, zero update, KF, Kalman Filter, GCT, Gait cycle time, IPM, inverted pendulum model, St
FIGURE 4An FSR sensor-based force myography band for gait application [Reproduced with permission from Jiang (2018), Memorial University of Newfoundland].
Current progress in non-pharmacological therapeutic and rehabilitation measures for neurodegenerative gait and motor functions.
| Neuro-disorder | Gait and biomechanical manifestation(s) | Advances in therapeutic/Caregiving strategies |
| AD | Slow gait speed | Wearables ( |
| PD | Freezing of gait | Wearables ( |
| HD | Slow gait speed | Wearable ( |
| ALS | Small stride length | Wearables ( |
| MS | Decreased gait speed | Wearables ( |