Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Assessing inertial measurement unit locations for freezing of gait detection and patient preference

View ORCID ProfileJohanna O’Day, View ORCID ProfileMarissa Lee, View ORCID ProfileKirsten Seagers, Shannon Hoffman, Ava Jih-Schiff, View ORCID ProfileŁukasz Kidziński, Scott Delp, View ORCID ProfileHelen Bronte-Stewart
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264041
Johanna O’Day
1Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Johanna O’Day
  • For correspondence: odayj{at}stanford.edu
Marissa Lee
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marissa Lee
Kirsten Seagers
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kirsten Seagers
Shannon Hoffman
3Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ava Jih-Schiff
4Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Łukasz Kidziński
1Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Łukasz Kidziński
Scott Delp
1Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Bronte-Stewart
3Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
6Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Helen Bronte-Stewart
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Freezing of gait, a common symptom of Parkinson’s disease, presents as sporadic episodes in which an individual’s feet suddenly feel stuck to the ground. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) promise to enable at-home monitoring and personalization of therapy, but there is a lack of consensus on the number and location of IMUs for detecting freezing of gait. The purpose of this study was to assess IMU sets in the context of both freezing of gait detection performance and patient preference.

Methods Sixteen people with Parkinson’s disease were surveyed about sensor preferences. Raw IMU data from seven people with Parkinson’s disease, wearing up to eleven sensors, were used to train convolutional neural networks to detect freezing of gait. Models trained with data from different sensor sets were assessed for technical performance; a best technical set and minimal IMU set were identified. Clinical utility was assessed by comparing model- and human-rater-determined percent time freezing and number of freezing events.

Results The best technical set consisted of three IMUs (lumbar and both ankles, AUROC = 0.83), all of which were rated highly wearable. The minimal IMU set consisted of a single ankle IMU (AUROC = 0.80). Correlations between these models and human raters were good to excellent for percent time freezing (ICC = 0.93, 0.89) and number of freezing events (ICC = 0.95, 0.86) for the best technical set and minimal IMU set, respectively.

Conclusions Several IMU sets consisting of three IMUs or fewer were highly rated for both technical performance and wearability, and more IMUs did not necessarily perform better in FOG detection. We openly share our data and software to further the development and adoption of a general, open-source model that uses raw signals and a standard sensor set for at-home monitoring of freezing of gait.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Mobilize Center P41EB027060, RESTORE Center NIH NINDS Grant P2CHD101913, UH3 NS107709-01A1, Stanford Bio-X Bowes Fellowship, Inventec Stanford Graduate Fellowship, NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. The Stanford REDCap platform (http://redcap.stanford.edu) is developed and operated by the Stanford Medicine Research IT team. The REDCap platform services at Stanford are subsidized by a) Stanford School of Medicine Research Office, and b) the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant UL1 TR001085.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Stanford University Institutional Review Board

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • ↵* co-first authors

  • ↵+ co-last authors

  • The revision is updated to minimize the use of "generalizable", include additional citations and to include summary demographic statistics.

Data Availability

Sample code and data is available on github.

https://github.com/stanfordnmbl/imu-fog-detection

  • List of abbreviations

    (FOG)
    freezing of gait
    (IMU)
    inertial measurement unit
    (AUROC)
    area under the receiver operating characteristic
    (ICC)
    intraclass correlation
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted February 03, 2022.
    Download PDF
    Data/Code
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Assessing inertial measurement unit locations for freezing of gait detection and patient preference
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    Assessing inertial measurement unit locations for freezing of gait detection and patient preference
    Johanna O’Day, Marissa Lee, Kirsten Seagers, Shannon Hoffman, Ava Jih-Schiff, Łukasz Kidziński, Scott Delp, Helen Bronte-Stewart
    medRxiv 2021.09.27.21264041; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264041
    Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    Assessing inertial measurement unit locations for freezing of gait detection and patient preference
    Johanna O’Day, Marissa Lee, Kirsten Seagers, Shannon Hoffman, Ava Jih-Schiff, Łukasz Kidziński, Scott Delp, Helen Bronte-Stewart
    medRxiv 2021.09.27.21264041; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264041

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Neurology
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Addiction Medicine (349)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Anesthesia (181)
    • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
    • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
    • Dermatology (223)
    • Emergency Medicine (399)
    • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
    • Epidemiology (12228)
    • Forensic Medicine (10)
    • Gastroenterology (759)
    • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
    • Geriatric Medicine (387)
    • Health Economics (680)
    • Health Informatics (2657)
    • Health Policy (1005)
    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
    • Hematology (363)
    • HIV/AIDS (851)
    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
    • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
    • Medical Education (399)
    • Medical Ethics (109)
    • Nephrology (436)
    • Neurology (3882)
    • Nursing (209)
    • Nutrition (577)
    • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
    • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
    • Oncology (2030)
    • Ophthalmology (585)
    • Orthopedics (240)
    • Otolaryngology (306)
    • Pain Medicine (250)
    • Palliative Medicine (75)
    • Pathology (473)
    • Pediatrics (1115)
    • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
    • Primary Care Research (452)
    • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
    • Public and Global Health (6527)
    • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
    • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
    • Respiratory Medicine (871)
    • Rheumatology (409)
    • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
    • Sports Medicine (342)
    • Surgery (448)
    • Toxicology (53)
    • Transplantation (185)
    • Urology (165)