Eva Dorschky, Marlies Nitschke, Matthias Mayer, Ive Weygers, Heiko Gassner, Thomas Seel, Bjoern M Eskofier, Anne D Koelewijn
{"title":"Comparing sparse inertial sensor setups for sagittal-plane walking and running reconstructions.","authors":"Eva Dorschky, Marlies Nitschke, Matthias Mayer, Ive Weygers, Heiko Gassner, Thomas Seel, Bjoern M Eskofier, Anne D Koelewijn","doi":"10.3389/fbioe.2025.1507162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Estimating spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic movement variables with little obtrusion to the user is critical for clinical and sports applications. One possible approach is using a sparse inertial sensor setup, where sensors are not placed on all relevant body segments. Here, we investigated if movement variables can be estimated similarly accurate from sparse sensor setups as from a full lower-body sensor setup. We estimated the variables by solving optimal control problems with sagittal plane lower-body musculoskeletal models, in which we minimized an objective that combined tracking of accelerometer and gyroscope data with minimizing muscular effort. We created simulations for 10 participants at three walking and three running speeds, using seven sensor setups with between two and seven sensors located at the feet, shank, thighs, and/or pelvis. We found that differences between variables estimated from inertial sensors and those from optical motion capture were small for all sensor setups. Including all sensors did not necessarily lead to the smallest root mean square deviations (RMSDs) and highest coefficients of determination ( <math> <mrow> <msup><mrow><mtext>R</mtext></mrow> <mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow> </msup> </mrow> </math> ). Setups without a pelvis sensor led to too much forward trunk lean and inaccurate spatiotemporal variables. Mean RMSDs were highest for the setup with two foot-worn inertial sensors (largest error in knee angle during running: 18 deg vs. 11 deg for the full lower-body setup), and ranged between 4.8-18 deg for the joint angles, between 1.0-5.4 BW BH% for the joint moments, and between 0.03 BW-0.49 BW for the ground reaction forces. We found strong or moderate relationships ( <math> <mrow> <msup><mrow><mtext>R</mtext></mrow> <mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow> </msup> <mo>></mo> <mn>0.5</mn></mrow> </math> ) on average for all kinematic and kinetic variables, except for the hip and knee moment for five out of the seven setups. The large range of the coefficient of determination for most kinetic variables indicated individual differences in simulation quality. Therefore, we conclude that we can perform a comprehensive sagittal-plane motion analysis with sparse sensor setups as accurately as with a full sensor setup with sensors on the feet and on either the pelvis or the thighs. Such a sparse sensor setup enables comprehensive movement analysis outside the laboratory, by increasing usability of inertial sensors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12444,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","volume":"13 ","pages":"1507162"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879983/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1507162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Estimating spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic movement variables with little obtrusion to the user is critical for clinical and sports applications. One possible approach is using a sparse inertial sensor setup, where sensors are not placed on all relevant body segments. Here, we investigated if movement variables can be estimated similarly accurate from sparse sensor setups as from a full lower-body sensor setup. We estimated the variables by solving optimal control problems with sagittal plane lower-body musculoskeletal models, in which we minimized an objective that combined tracking of accelerometer and gyroscope data with minimizing muscular effort. We created simulations for 10 participants at three walking and three running speeds, using seven sensor setups with between two and seven sensors located at the feet, shank, thighs, and/or pelvis. We found that differences between variables estimated from inertial sensors and those from optical motion capture were small for all sensor setups. Including all sensors did not necessarily lead to the smallest root mean square deviations (RMSDs) and highest coefficients of determination ( ). Setups without a pelvis sensor led to too much forward trunk lean and inaccurate spatiotemporal variables. Mean RMSDs were highest for the setup with two foot-worn inertial sensors (largest error in knee angle during running: 18 deg vs. 11 deg for the full lower-body setup), and ranged between 4.8-18 deg for the joint angles, between 1.0-5.4 BW BH% for the joint moments, and between 0.03 BW-0.49 BW for the ground reaction forces. We found strong or moderate relationships ( ) on average for all kinematic and kinetic variables, except for the hip and knee moment for five out of the seven setups. The large range of the coefficient of determination for most kinetic variables indicated individual differences in simulation quality. Therefore, we conclude that we can perform a comprehensive sagittal-plane motion analysis with sparse sensor setups as accurately as with a full sensor setup with sensors on the feet and on either the pelvis or the thighs. Such a sparse sensor setup enables comprehensive movement analysis outside the laboratory, by increasing usability of inertial sensors.
期刊介绍:
The translation of new discoveries in medicine to clinical routine has never been easy. During the second half of the last century, thanks to the progress in chemistry, biochemistry and pharmacology, we have seen the development and the application of a large number of drugs and devices aimed at the treatment of symptoms, blocking unwanted pathways and, in the case of infectious diseases, fighting the micro-organisms responsible. However, we are facing, today, a dramatic change in the therapeutic approach to pathologies and diseases. Indeed, the challenge of the present and the next decade is to fully restore the physiological status of the diseased organism and to completely regenerate tissue and organs when they are so seriously affected that treatments cannot be limited to the repression of symptoms or to the repair of damage. This is being made possible thanks to the major developments made in basic cell and molecular biology, including stem cell science, growth factor delivery, gene isolation and transfection, the advances in bioengineering and nanotechnology, including development of new biomaterials, biofabrication technologies and use of bioreactors, and the big improvements in diagnostic tools and imaging of cells, tissues and organs.
In today`s world, an enhancement of communication between multidisciplinary experts, together with the promotion of joint projects and close collaborations among scientists, engineers, industry people, regulatory agencies and physicians are absolute requirements for the success of any attempt to develop and clinically apply a new biological therapy or an innovative device involving the collective use of biomaterials, cells and/or bioactive molecules. “Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology” aspires to be a forum for all people involved in the process by bridging the gap too often existing between a discovery in the basic sciences and its clinical application.