4.6 Article

Creteil, Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of Connected Insoles to Measure Gait Parameters in Healthy Adults

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 21, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21196543

Keywords

validation; insoles; GAITRite(R); pressure sensor; IMU; gait; gait variability; FeetMe(R)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that connected insoles are equivalent to GAITRite mats in estimating both the mean and variability of gait parameters, showing a high level of agreement between the two devices.
The continuous, accurate and reliable estimation of gait parameters as a measure of mobility is essential to assess the loss of functional capacity related to the progression of disease. Connected insoles are suitable wearable devices which allow precise, continuous, remote and passive gait assessment. The data of 25 healthy volunteers aged 20 to 77 years were analysed in the study to validate gait parameters (stride length, velocity, stance, swing, step and single support durations and cadence) measured by FeetMe(R) insoles against the GAITRite(R) mat reference. The mean values and the values of variability were calculated per subject for GAITRite(R) and insoles. A t-test and Levene's test were used to compare the gait parameters for means and variances, respectively, obtained for both devices. Additionally, measures of bias, standard deviation of differences, Pearson's correlation and intraclass correlation were analysed to explore overall agreement between the two devices. No significant differences in mean and variance between the two devices were detected. Pearson's correlation coefficients of averaged gait estimates were higher than 0.98 and 0.8, respectively, for unipedal and bipedal gait parameters, supporting a high level of agreement between the two devices. The connected insoles are therefore a device equivalent to GAITRite(R) to estimate the mean and variability of gait parameters.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available