Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics
<p>Xsens sensors placement. Front (<b>left</b>) and back (<b>right</b>) views.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Synchronization of both devices (Xsens) and Move4D in A-Pose.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Foot center velocity with identification of step events [<a href="#B24-sensors-24-04669" class="html-bibr">24</a>]. The first dot minimum represents the time of the initial heel strike. In contrast, the final dot minimum is the final heel strike, so they mark the start at the end of the gait cycle. The absolute dotted maximum instead represents the toe-off.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Hip flexion (+)/extension (−); (<b>b</b>) knee flexion (+)/extension (−); (<b>c</b>) ankle dorsiflexion (+)/plantarflexion (−).</p> "> Figure A1
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing duration differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the first trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For stance time, the mean difference is −0.025 s, while for swing time, it is −0.003 s.</p> "> Figure A2
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing percentage differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the first trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. The mean difference for the stance percentage is −0.535%, while the swing percentage is 0.535%.</p> "> Figure A3
<p>Bland–Altman plots cycle time and stride length differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the first trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For cycle time, the mean difference is −0.027 s, while for stride length, it is 0.272 m.</p> "> Figure A4
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing duration differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the second trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For stance time, the mean difference is −0.006 s, while the mean of swing time is −0.001 s.</p> "> Figure A5
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing percentage differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the second trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For the stance percentage, the mean difference is −0.089%, while for the swing percentage is 0.089%.</p> "> Figure A6
<p>Bland–Altman plots cycle time and stride length differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the second trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For cycle time, the mean difference is −0.006 s, while for stride length, it is 0.344 m.</p> "> Figure A7
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing duration differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the third trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For stance time, the mean difference is 0.016 s, while for swing time, it is −0.004 s.</p> "> Figure A8
<p>Bland–Altman plots of stance and swing percentage differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the third trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For the stance percentage, the mean difference is 0.755%, while for the swing percentage is −0.755%.</p> "> Figure A9
<p>Bland–Altman plots cycle time and stride length differences between measurements analyzed by Move4D and Xsens for the third trial. The central red line represents the mean difference. In contrast, the upper and lower red lines represent the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI, respectively. For cycle time, the mean difference is 0.011 s, while for stride length, it is 0.308 m.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Protocol
2.2. Instrumentation
2.3. Post-Processing
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Inter-Trial Variability
3.2. Inter-Subjects Variability
3.3. Paired Samples t-Test and Bland–Altman Analysis
3.4. Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient
3.5. Kinematics
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Winter, D.A. Biomechanics as an Interdiscipline. In Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movemen, 4th ed.; John Wiley Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Sutherland, D.H.; Chambers, H.G. A practical guide to gait analysis. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2002, 10, 222–231. [Google Scholar]
- Muro-de-la Herran, A.; Garcia-Zapirain, B.; Mendez-Zorrilla, A. Gait analysis methods: An overview of wearable and non-wearable systems, highlighting clinical applications. Sensors 2014, 14, 3362–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittle, M.W. Clinical gait analysis: A review. Hum. Mov. Sci. 1996, 15, 369–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, M.J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function; Slack Incorporated: West Deptford, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Leal, J.A.; Frizera-Neto, A. Introduction and overview of werable technologies. In Optical Fiber Sensors for the Next Generation of Rehabilitation Robotics; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 3–5. [Google Scholar]
- Cicirelli, G.; Impedovo, D.; Dentamaro, V.; Marani, R.; Pirlo, G.; D’Orazio, T.R. Human gait analysis in neurodegener- ative diseases: A review. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2021, 26, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceseracciu, E.; Sawacha, Z.; Cobelli, C. Comparison of markerless and marker-based motion capture technologies through simultaneous data collection during gait: Proof of concept. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappozzo, A.; Della Croce, U.; Leardini, A.; Chiari, L. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part 1: Theoretical background. Gait Posture 2005, 21, 186–196. [Google Scholar]
- Das, K.; de Paula Oliveira, T.; Newell, J. Comparison of markerless and marker-based motion capture systems using 95% functional limits of agreement in a linear mixed-effects modelling framework. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petraglia, F.; Scarcella, L.; Pedrazzi, G.; Brancato, L.; Puers, R.; Costantino, C. Inertial sensors versus standard systems in gait analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 55, 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Chen, Y.; Tang, L.; Chen, J.; Tang, J.; Yang, X.; Su, S.; Zhao, C.; Xiao, N. Accuracy validation of a wearable imu-based gait analysis in healthy female. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2024, 16, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scataglini, S.; Kandappu, T.; Ghose, A.; Sinha, A. Wearable sensors role in promoting health and wellness via reliable and longitudinal monitoring. Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1201847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scataglini, S.; Van Dyck, Z.; Declercq, V.; Van Cleemput, G.; Struyf, N.; Truijen, S. Effect of Music Based Therapy Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS) Using Wearable Device in Rehabilitation of Neurological Patients: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2023, 23, 5933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scataglini, S.; Imbesi, S. Human-Centered Design Smart Clothing for Ambient Assisted Living of Elderly Users: Considerations in the COVID-19 Pandemic Perspective. In IoT in Healthcare and Ambient Assisted Living. Studies in Computational Intelligence; Marques, G., Bhoi, A.K., Albuquerque, V.H.C., K.S., H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 933. [Google Scholar]
- Imbesi, S.; Scataglini, S. A user centered methodology for the design of smart apparel for older users. Sensors 2021, 21, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haleem, A.; Javaid, M. 3d scanning applications in medical field: A literature-based review. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2019, 7, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Rosario, H.; Scataglini, S.; Basso, F.; Alemany, S.; Saeys, W.; Truijen, S. Applications of Using 4D Scanning Technologies in Biomechanics. In Advances in Digital Human Modeling; Scataglini, S., Harih, G., Saeys, W., Truijen, S., Eds.; DHM 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruescas Nicolau, A.V.; De Rosario, H.; Della-Vedova, F.B.; Parrilla Bernabé, E.; Juan, M.C.; López-Pascual, J. Accuracy of a 3d temporal scanning system for gait analysis: Comparative with a marker-based photogrammetry system. Gait Posture 2022, 97, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Shin, S. The Effect of Body Composition on Gait Variability Varies with Age: Interaction by Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Julious, S.A. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm. Stat. J. Appl. Stat. Pharm. Ind. 2005, 4, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scataglini, S.; Truijen, S. Overview of software and file exchange formats in 3D and 4D body shape scanning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Digital Human Modeling Symposium (DHM 2022) and Iowa Virtual Human Summit 2022, Iowa City, IA, USA, 29–31 August 2022; Volume 7. No. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Stief, F.; Böhm, H.; Michel, K.; Schwirtz, A.; Döderlein, L. Reliability and accuracy in three-dimensional gait analysis: A comparison of two lower body protocols. J. Appl. Biomech. 2013, 29, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, C.; Thorpe, S.K.; O’Malley, M.J.; Vaughan, C.L. Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture 2007, 25, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cicchetti, D.V. The precision of reliability and validity estimates re- visited: Distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2001, 23, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.T.; Novak, A.C.; Brouwer, B.; Li, Q. Concurrent validation of xsens mvn measurement of lower limb joint angular kinematics. Physiol. Meas. 2013, 34, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murray, M.P.; Drought, A.B.; Kory, R.C. Walking patterns of normal men. JBJS 1964, 46, 335–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirtley, C.; Whittle, M.; Jefferson, R. Influence of walking speed on gait parameters. J. Biomed. Eng. 1985, 7, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jordan, K.; Challis, J.H.; Newell, K.M. Walking speed influences on gait cycle variability. Gait Posture 2007, 26, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stein, J. Chapter 159—Stroke. In Essentials of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 4th ed.; Frontera, W.R., Silver, J.K., Rizzo, T.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 931–936. [Google Scholar]
- Lehmann, J.F.; Condon, S.M.; Price, R.; de Lateur, B.J. Gait abnormalities in hemiplegia: Their correction by ankle-foot orthoses. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1987, 68, 763–771. [Google Scholar]
- Scataglini, S.; Verwulgen, S.; Roosens, E.; Haelterman, R.; Van Tiggelen, D. Measuring spatiotemporal parameters on treadmill walking using wearable inertial system. Sensors 2021, 21, 4441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietraszewski, B.; Winiarski, S.; Jaroszczuk, S. Three-dimensional human gait pattern–reference data for normal men. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2012, 14, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dale, R.B. Clinical Gait Assessment. In Physical Rehabilitation of the Injured Athlete; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 464–479. [Google Scholar]
- Mansfield, A.; Innes, E.L.; Mcilroy, W.E. Stroke. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 59, pp. 205–228. [Google Scholar]
- Mokkink, L.B.; Boers, M.; Van Der Vleuten, C.P.M.; Bouter, L.; Alonso, J.; Patrick, D.; De Vet, H.C.W.; Terwee, C.B. Cosmin risk of bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: A delphi study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020, 20, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moseley, A.; Wales, A.; Herbert, R.; Schurr, K.; Moore, S. Observation and analysis of hemiplegic gait: Stance phase. Aust. J. Physiother. 1993, 39, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mavor, M.P.; Ross, G.B.; Clouthier, A.L.; Karakolis, T.; Graham, R.B. Validation of an imu suit for military-based tasks. Sensors 2020, 20, 4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, B.; Li, Q.; Kang, P.; Shull, P.B. Effects of IMU Sensor-to-Segment Misalignment and Orientation Error on 3-D Knee Joint Angle Estimation. IEEE Sens. J. 2022, 22, 2543–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, G.; Scataglini, S. Open-source software to create a kinematic model in digital human modeling. In DHM Posturography; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 201–213. [Google Scholar]
- Scataglini, S.; Paul, G. From Greek Sculpture to the Digital Human Model—A History of “Human Equilibrium”; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 3–5. [Google Scholar]
- Cimolin, V.; Vismara, L.; Galli, M.; Zaina, F.; Negrini, S.; Capodaglio, P. Effects of obesity and chronic low back pain on gait. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2011, 8, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 23.30 | 1.44 |
Height (m) | 1.72 | 0.06 |
Weight (kg) | 70.44 | 7.37 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 23.85 | 2.69 |
MOVE4D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | STD | 95% CI | ||
Upper | Lower | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.75 | 0.03 | 0.81 | 0.69 |
Swing time (s) | 0.49 | 0.02 | 0.53 | 0.46 |
Stance perc. (%) | 60.27 | 1.12 | 62.72 | 57.82 |
Swing perc. (%) | 39.73 | 1.12 | 42.18 | 37.28 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.24 | 0.03 | 1.31 | 1.17 |
Stride length (m) | 1.43 | 0.07 | 1.58 | 1.28 |
Xsens | ||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI | ||
Upper | Lower | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.75 | 0.03 | 0.82 | 0.69 |
Swing time (s) | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.53 | 0.46 |
Stance perc. (%) | 60.26 | 1.05 | 62.56 | 57.97 |
Swing perc. (%) | 39.74 | 1.05 | 42.03 | 37.44 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.25 | 0.04 | 1.33 | 1.17 |
Stride length (m) | 1.12 | 0.15 | 1.44 | 0.80 |
TRIAL1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOVE4D | Xsens | |||||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | |||
Upper | Lower | Upper | Lower | |||||
Stance time (s) | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.07 | 0.81 | 0.72 |
Swing time (s) | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 0.48 |
Stance perc. (%) | 60.15 | 1.97 | 61.34 | 58.96 | 60.69 | 1.89 | 61.83 | 59.55 |
Swing perc. (%) | 39.85 | 1.97 | 41.04 | 38.66 | 39.31 | 1.89 | 40.45 | 38.17 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.24 | 0.08 | 1.29 | 1.19 | 1.26 | 0.09 | 1.32 | 1.21 |
Stride length (m) | 1.4 | 0.07 | 1.44 | 1.36 | 1.13 | 0.22 | 1.27 | 1.00 |
TRIAL2 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOVE4D | Xsens | |||||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | |||
Upper | Lower | Upper | Lower | |||||
Stance time (s) | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
Swing time (s) | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 0.48 |
Stance perc. (%) | 59.96 | 1.66 | 60.96 | 58.96 | 60.05 | 1.87 | 61.18 | 58.92 |
Swing perc. (%) | 40.04 | 1.66 | 41.04 | 39.04 | 39.95 | 1.87 | 41.08 | 38.82 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.23 | 0.08 | 1.28 | 1.18 | 1.24 | 0.11 | 1.30 | 1.17 |
Stride length (m) | 1.46 | 0.09 | 1.51 | 1.40 | 1.11 | 0.25 | 1.26 | 0.96 |
TRIAL3 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOVE4D | Xsens | |||||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | |||
Upper | Lower | Upper | Lower | |||||
Stance time (s) | 0.74 | 0.05 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 0.77 | 0.69 |
Swing time (s) | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 0.47 |
Stance perc. (%) | 60.43 | 1.15 | 61.12 | 59.74 | 59.68 | 2.24 | 61.03 | 58.32 |
Swing perc. (%) | 39.57 | 1.15 | 40.26 | 38.88 | 40.32 | 2.24 | 41.68 | 38.97 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.23 | 0.07 | 1.27 | 1.19 | 1.22 | 0.08 | 1.27 | 1.17 |
Stride length (m) | 1.43 | 0.07 | 1.47 | 1.39 | 1.12 | 0.19 | 1.24 | 1.01 |
Hemiplegic Patient | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
MOVE4D | ||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | ||
Upper | Lower | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.99 | 0.12 | 1.24 | 0.73 |
Swing time (s) | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 0.39 |
Stance perc. (%) | 66.14 | 0.46 | 67.14 | 65.14 |
Swing perc. (%) | 33.86 | 0.46 | 34.85 | 32.85 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.49 | 0.17 | 1.85 | 1.12 |
Stride length (m) | 0.94 | 0.08 | 1.09 | 0.77 |
Xsens | ||||
Mean | STD | 95% CI of the Mean | ||
Upper | Lower | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.90 | 0.15 | 1.21 | 0.58 |
Swing time (s) | 0.53 | 0.05 | 0.64 | 0.42 |
Stance perc. (%) | 62.64 | 2.39 | 67.85 | 57.43 |
Swing perc. (%) | 37.35 | 2.39 | 42.56 | 32.15 |
Cylce time (s) | 1.43 | 0.19 | 1.84 | 1.02 |
Stride length (m) | 0.80 | 0.16 | 1.16 | 0.44 |
Paired Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Std. Error Mean | 95% CI | t | Significance | ||
Lower | Upper | Two-Sided p | |||||
Stance time (s) | −0.023 | 0.054 | 0.015 | −0.056 | 0.01 | −1.534 | 0.151 |
Swing time (s) | −0.004 | 0.022 | 0.006 | −0.017 | 0.009 | −0.640 | 0.534 |
Stance perc. (%) | −0.535 | 2.530 | 0.702 | −2.064 | 0.994 | −0.763 | 0.460 |
Swing perc. (%) | 0.535 | 2.530 | 0.702 | −0.994 | 2.064 | 0.763 | 0.460 |
Cycle time (s) | −0.027 | 0.041 | 0.011 | −0.052 | −0.002 | −2.360 | 0.036 |
Stride length (m) | 0.272 | 0.23 | 0.064 | 0.133 | 0.411 | 4.273 | 0.001 |
Paired Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Std. Error Mean | 95% CI | t | Significance | ||
Lower | Upper | Two-Sided p | |||||
Stance time (s) | −0.005 | 0.047 | 0.013 | −0.034 | 0.023 | −0.391 | 0.703 |
Swing time (s) | 0.000 | 0.027 | 0.008 | −0.016 | 0.016 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Stance perc. (%) | −0.088 | 2.097 | 0.582 | −1.355 | 1.179 | −0.152 | 0.882 |
Swing perc. (%) | 0.088 | 2.097 | 0.582 | −1.179 | 1.355 | 0.152 | 0.882 |
Cycle time (s) | −0.005 | 0.051 | 0.014 | −0.036 | 0.025 | −0.365 | 0.721 |
Stride length (m) | 0.343 | 0.283 | 0.079 | 0.171 | 0.514 | 4.356 | <0.001 |
Paired Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Std. Error Mean | 95% CI | t | Significance | ||
Lower | Upper | Two-Sided p | |||||
Stance time (s) | 0.015 | 0.039 | 0.011 | −0.008 | 0.039 | 1.409 | 0.184 |
Swing time (s) | −0.004 | 0.019 | 0.005 | −0.016 | 0.008 | −0.714 | 0.489 |
Stance perc. (%) | 0.754 | 1.905 | 0.528 | −0.397 | 1.905 | 1.427 | 0.179 |
Swing perc. (%) | −0.754 | 1.905 | 0.528 | −1.905 | 0.397 | −1.427 | 0.179 |
Cycle time (s) | 0.012 | 0.034 | 0.010 | −0.009 | 0.032 | 1.214 | 0.248 |
Stride length (m) | 0.308 | 0.180 | 0.050 | 0.200 | 0.417 | 6.181 | <0.001 |
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient TRIAL1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Intraclass Correlation | 95% Confidence Interval | Significance | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.662 | 0.230 | 0.880 | 0.004 |
Swing time (s) | 0.765 | 0.400 | 0.920 | <0.001 |
Stance perc. (%) | 0.143 | −0.440 | 0.630 | 0.318 |
Swing perc. (%) | 0.143 | −0.440 | 0.630 | 0.318 |
Cycle time (s) | 0.889 | 0.677 | 0.965 | <0.001 |
Stride length (m) | 0.010 | −0.530 | 0.540 | 0.491 |
Interclass Correlation Coefficient TRIAL2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Intraclass Correlation | 95% Confidence Interval | Significance | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.806 | 0.476 | 0.937 | <0.001 |
Swing time (s) | 0.601 | 0.077 | 0.860 | 0.015 |
Stance perc. (%) | 0.311 | −0.311 | 0.731 | 0.153 |
Swing perc. (%) | 0.311 | −0.311 | 0.731 | 0.153 |
Cycle time (s) | 0.869 | 0.626 | 0.958 | <0.001 |
Stride length (m) | −0.150 | −0.632 | 0.416 | 0.696 |
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient TRIAL3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Intraclass Correlation | 95% Confidence Interval | Significance | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||
Stance time (s) | 0.760 | 0.400 | 0.919 | <0.001 |
Swing time (s) | 0.788 | 0.448 | 0.93 | <0.001 |
Stance perc. (%) | 0.407 | −0.110 | 0.765 | 0.065 |
Swing perc. (%) | 0.407 | −0.110 | 0.765 | 0.065 |
Cycle time (s) | 0.897 | 0.707 | 0.967 | <0.001 |
Stride length (m) | 0.196 | −0.375 | 0.660 | 0.251 |
MOVE4D | Xsens | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | STD | 95% CI | Mean | STD | 95% CI | |||
Upper | Lower | Upper | Lower | |||||
Hip flexion/extension (°) | 44.87 | 2.54 | 50.41 | 39.33 | 41.07 | 2.96 | 47.52 | 34.63 |
Knee flexion/extension (°) | 58.75 | 4.14 | 67.78 | 49.72 | 61.06 | 3.76 | 69.24 | 52.88 |
Ankle dorsiflexion/plantarflexion (°) | 24.13 | 7.67 | 40.84 | 7.42 | 35.49 | 6.23 | 49.05 | 21.92 |
Move4D | Xsens | |
---|---|---|
Hip flexion/extension (°) | 31.41 | 42.25 |
Knee flexion/extension (°) | 29.71 | 27.39 |
Ankle dorsiflexion/plantarflexion (°) | 39.24 | 41.19 |
Hip Flexion/Extension (°) | Knee Flexion/Extension (°) | Ankle Dorsiflexion/Plantarflexion (°) | |
---|---|---|---|
RMSE | 10.99 | 5.07 | 10.25 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meletani, S.; Scataglini, S.; Mandolini, M.; Scalise, L.; Truijen, S. Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics. Sensors 2024, 24, 4669. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24144669
Meletani S, Scataglini S, Mandolini M, Scalise L, Truijen S. Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics. Sensors. 2024; 24(14):4669. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24144669
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeletani, Sara, Sofia Scataglini, Marco Mandolini, Lorenzo Scalise, and Steven Truijen. 2024. "Experimental Comparison between 4D Stereophotogrammetry and Inertial Measurement Unit Systems for Gait Spatiotemporal Parameters and Joint Kinematics" Sensors 24, no. 14: 4669. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24144669