4.5 Article

Gait event detection using inertial measurement units in people with transfemoral amputation: a comparative study

Journal

MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages 461-470

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-019-02098-4

Keywords

Inertial measurement units; Gait events; Gait temporal parameters; Asymmetry; Transfemoral amputee

Funding

  1. Federation des Amputes de Guerre de France
  2. Universite Franco-Italienne [VINCI 2018-C2-881]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been proposed as an alternative to force platforms and pressure sensors for gait events (i.e., initial and final contacts) detection. While multiple algorithms have been developed, the impact of gait event timing errors on temporal parameters and asymmetry has never been investigated in people with transfemoral amputation walking freely on level ground. In this study, five algorithms were comparatively assessed on gait data of seven people with transfemoral amputation, equipped with three IMUs mounted at the pelvis and both shanks, using pressure insoles for reference. Algorithms' performance was first quantified in terms of gait event detection rate (sensitivity, positive predictive value). Only two algorithms, based on shank mounted IMUs, achieved an acceptable detection rate (positive predictive value > 99%). For these two, accuracy of gait events timings, temporal parameters, and absolute symmetry index of stance-phase duration (SPD-ASI) were assessed. Whereas both algorithms achieved high accuracy for stride duration estimates (median errors: 0%, interquartile ranges < 1.75%), lower accuracy was found for other temporal parameters due to relatively high errors in the detection of final contact events. Furthermore, SPD-ASI derived from IMU-based algorithms proved to be significantly different to that obtained from insoles data.

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