Jocelyn F Hafer, Julien A Mihy, Andrew Hunt, Ronald F Zernicke, Russell T Johnson
{"title":"Lower Extremity Inverse Kinematics Results Differ Between Inertial Measurement Unit- and Marker-Derived Gait Data.","authors":"Jocelyn F Hafer, Julien A Mihy, Andrew Hunt, Ronald F Zernicke, Russell T Johnson","doi":"10.1123/jab.2022-0194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In-lab, marker-based gait analyses may not represent real-world gait. Real-world gait analyses may be feasible using inertial measurement units (IMUs) in combination with open-source data processing pipelines (OpenSense). Before using OpenSense to study real-world gait, we must determine whether these methods estimate joint kinematics similarly to traditional marker-based motion capture (MoCap) and differentiate groups with clinically different gait mechanics. Healthy young and older adults and older adults with knee osteoarthritis completed this study. We captured MoCap and IMU data during overground walking at 2 speeds. MoCap and IMU kinematics were computed with OpenSim workflows. We tested whether sagittal kinematics differed between MoCap and IMU, whether tools detected between-group differences similarly, and whether kinematics differed between tools by speed. MoCap showed more anterior pelvic tilt (0%-100% stride) and joint flexion than IMU (hip: 0%-38% and 61%-100% stride; knee: 0%-38%, 58%-89%, and 95%-99% stride; and ankle: 6%-99% stride). There were no significant tool-by-group interactions. We found significant tool-by-speed interactions for all angles. While MoCap- and IMU-derived kinematics differed, the lack of tool-by-group interactions suggests consistent tracking across clinical cohorts. Results of the current study suggest that IMU-derived kinematics with OpenSense may enable reliable evaluation of gait in real-world settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":54883,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Biomechanics","volume":"39 3","pages":"133-142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2022-0194","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In-lab, marker-based gait analyses may not represent real-world gait. Real-world gait analyses may be feasible using inertial measurement units (IMUs) in combination with open-source data processing pipelines (OpenSense). Before using OpenSense to study real-world gait, we must determine whether these methods estimate joint kinematics similarly to traditional marker-based motion capture (MoCap) and differentiate groups with clinically different gait mechanics. Healthy young and older adults and older adults with knee osteoarthritis completed this study. We captured MoCap and IMU data during overground walking at 2 speeds. MoCap and IMU kinematics were computed with OpenSim workflows. We tested whether sagittal kinematics differed between MoCap and IMU, whether tools detected between-group differences similarly, and whether kinematics differed between tools by speed. MoCap showed more anterior pelvic tilt (0%-100% stride) and joint flexion than IMU (hip: 0%-38% and 61%-100% stride; knee: 0%-38%, 58%-89%, and 95%-99% stride; and ankle: 6%-99% stride). There were no significant tool-by-group interactions. We found significant tool-by-speed interactions for all angles. While MoCap- and IMU-derived kinematics differed, the lack of tool-by-group interactions suggests consistent tracking across clinical cohorts. Results of the current study suggest that IMU-derived kinematics with OpenSense may enable reliable evaluation of gait in real-world settings.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal of Applied Biomechanics (JAB) is to disseminate the highest quality peer-reviewed studies that utilize biomechanical strategies to advance the study of human movement. Areas of interest include clinical biomechanics, gait and posture mechanics, musculoskeletal and neuromuscular biomechanics, sport mechanics, and biomechanical modeling. Studies of sport performance that explicitly generalize to broader activities, contribute substantially to fundamental understanding of human motion, or are in a sport that enjoys wide participation, are welcome. Also within the scope of JAB are studies using biomechanical strategies to investigate the structure, control, function, and state (health and disease) of animals.