4.4 Article

Validity of using wearable inertial sensors for assessing the dynamics of standing balance

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 53-59

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.10.018

关键词

Center of pressure; Inertial measurement unit; Inverse dynamics; Joint moments; Measurement error

资金

  1. Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation through a Clinical Research Grant
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada [RGPIN-201604106]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observational balance tests (e.g., Berg Balance Scale) are used to evaluate fall-risk. However, they tend to be subjective, and their reliability and sensitivity can be limited. The use of in-lab equipment for objective balance evaluation has not been common in clinical practice, due to the requirement of an equipped lab space. While inertial measurement units (IMUs) enable objective out-of-lab balance assessment, their accuracy has not been validated. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of IMUs against in-lab equipment for characterizing standing balance. Ten non-disabled individuals participated in a two-minute standing test on a force-plate. Four approaches were used for estimating inter-segmental moments and center of pressure (COP) position in a four-segment model: (1) camera-based bottom-up approach; (2) camera-based top-down approach; (3) IMU-based (accelerometer) top-down approach; and (4) IMU-based (accelerometer and gyroscope) top-down approach. Approaches 2 to 4 resulted in high accuracy compared to the reference, Approach 1. The root-mean-square errors in estimating the segments' orientation, ground reaction forces, COP position, and joint moments were smaller than 0.3 degrees, 0.2 N/kg, 1.5 mm, and 0.016N m/kg, respectively. Since no significant differences were observed between the accuracy of Approaches 3 and 4, only accelerometer recordings are needed and could be recommended for monitoring standing balance. (C) 2019 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据