Abstract
Background Functional orientation orients inertial measurement unit (IMU) data (i.e., linear accelerations and angular velocities) to interpretable reference frames. To confidently collect reliable out-of-lab data, it is important to determine the extent to which we can correct for sensor placement variability.
Research Question To what extent does a functional orientation method minimize the effect of variability in sensor placement on IMU data?
Methods Twenty healthy adults (10 younger 28.2±3.7 years, 10 older 60.8±3.3years) walked overground at preferred speed in a lab. Three IMUs were placed per segment on the pelvis, thigh, shank, and foot. IMU data were oriented using an assumed orientation and two versions of a walking-based functional orientation (X-functional anchored to axis of rotation and Z-functional anchored to gravity). Segment angular excursions were calculated for each orientation method and compared between groups and sensor placements.
Results and Significance No significant interaction was found between sensor placement and group for any orientation method. For assumed orientation, segment angular excursion differed between sensor placements for at least 15% and up to 95% of the gait cycle, depending on segment. For both functional orientation methods, foot and shank excursions did not differ between sensors. Thigh excursion differed only for the X-functional orientation from 27-68% of the gait cycle. Neither functional orientation fully corrected for differences at the pelvis leaving significantly different excursions between 24-50% of the gait cycle. Functional orientation can reliably correct for variability in lower extremity IMU sensor placement. These methods can enable repeatable real-world IMU data collection in settings where sensors may move within or between days. Performing functional orientation periodically throughout a day can minimize the effect of sliding or rotating of the sensors on IMU-calculated gait measures and give in-lab quality gait data throughout hours of real-world activity to better understand the true movement of participants.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
IRB of University of Delaware gave ethical approval for this work.
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
