4.5 Article

Inertial motion capture validation of 3D knee kinematics at various gait speed on the treadmill with a double-pose calibration

Journal

GAIT & POSTURE
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages 132-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.01.029

Keywords

Inertial sensor; Walk; KneeKG; Accuracy; Inertial measurement unit (IMU)

Funding

  1. Mitacs Acceleration program [IT07452]
  2. FRQNT postdoctoral scholarship in Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Inertial motion capture (IMC) is rapidly gaining in popularity to evaluate gait in clinical settings. Previous examinations of IMC knee kinematics were often limited to the sagittal plane and IMC calibration has not been thoroughly investigated. Research question: The objective was to validate IMC 3D knee kinematics calibrated with a double-pose during gait with reference to optical motion capture (OMC). The hypotheses are that IMC can estimate adequately knee kinematics and that both systems will detect similarly the changes with gait speed. Methods: Twenty-four healthy participants walked on the treadmill at gait speed of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 m/s. Knee kinematics were obtained simultaneously with two magnetic and inertial measurement units and passive markers fixed on the KneeKG system. OMC was calibrated with a functional anatomical approach and the IMC with a double-pose. Results: Root mean square differences of the two systems yielded 3-6 degrees for knee flexion, adduction and external rotation. Knee kinematics were more similar during the stance phase than the swing phase. Gait speed showed a significant progressive effect on the three knee angles that was similarly detected by the two systems. Significance: IMC 3D knee kinematics can be obtained independently with a simple calibration and only two magnetic and inertial measurement units at an acceptable level of error especially during stance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available