4.5 Article

Gait parameter and event estimation using smartphones

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 217-223

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.06.011

关键词

Heel strike; Step count; Step length; Step period; Inverted pendulum model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The use of smartphones can greatly help for gait parameters estimation during daily living, but its accuracy needs a deeper evaluation against a gold standard. The objective of the paper is a step-by-step assessment of smartphone performance in heel strike, step count, step period, and step length estimation. The influence of smartphone placement and orientation on estimation performance is evaluated as well. Methods: This work relies on a smartphone app developed to acquire, process, and store inertial sensor data and rotation matrices about device position. Smartphone alignment was evaluated by expressing the acceleration vector in three reference frames. Two smartphone placements were tested. Three methods for heel strike detection were considered. On the basis of estimated heel strikes, step count is performed, step period is obtained, and the inverted pendulum model is applied for step length estimation. Pearson correlation coefficient, absolute and relative errors, ANOVA, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to compare smartphone estimation with stereophotogrammetry on eleven healthy subjects. Results: High correlations were found between smartphone and stereophotogrammetric measures: up to 0.93 for step count, to 0.99 for heel strike, 0.96 for step period, and 0.92 for step length. Error ranges are comparable to those in the literature. Smartphone placement did not affect the performance. The major influence of acceleration reference frames and heel strike detection method was found in step count. Conclusion: This study provides detailed information about expected accuracy when smartphone is used as a gait monitoring tool. The obtained results encourage real life applications.

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

4.5
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