Key result
The compensated sacral inertial sensor method improved center-of-mass estimation during walking, with RMS differences of 5.52, 4.44, and 3.17 mm (x, y, z) compared to segmental analysis.
Why the study?
Does the use of inertial sensors accurately estimate center-of-mass displacement during walking compared to conventional methods in healthy subjects?
Observational
Does the use of inertial sensors accurately estimate center-of-mass displacement during walking compared to conventional methods in healthy subjects?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Inertial sensors with compensation for pelvic rotations can accurately estimate center-of-mass displacement during walking under ambulatory conditions.
Current methods for center-of-mass (CoM) estimation are restricted to gait laboratories. The aim of this study was to estimate CoM displacement under ambulatory conditions with inertial sensors. A sacral inertial sensor (SIS method) was used to estimate the CoM displacement by double integration of the acceleration. Overestimation of the displacement caused by pelvic rotations was compensated (CSIS method). The CoM displacement estimations using the (C)SIS method were compared to the conventional methods of the segmental analysis (SA) method and the sacral marker (SM) method by the intraclass correlations and the root-mean-square (RMS) differences between the CoM curves. Accurate ambulatory measurement of the CoM displacement using inertial sensors was possible. Estimations of the sacrum position using the SIS method and the SM method were similar with mean (SD) RMS differences of 3.23 (0.87), 2.96 (0.42), and 3.22 (0.78) mm for, respectively, the x-, y- and z-directions. The CoM estimation of the SIS method has RMS differences of 5.67 (1.20), 7.16 (3.28), and 3.49 (1.29) mm compared the SA method. The CSIS method shows a clear improvement in these estimations of the CoM with RMS differences of 5.52 (1.29), 4.44 (1.89), and 3.17 (1.41) mm and is generally applicable for healthy subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Floor-Westerdijk et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Healthy subjects. Compensated sacral inertial sensor (CSIS) method vs. Segmental analysis (SA) and sacral marker (SM) methods was evaluated on Root-mean-square (RMS) differences between center-of-mass curves. The compensated sacral inertial sensor method improved center-of-mass estimation during walking, with RMS differences of 5.52, 4.44, and 3.17 mm (x, y, z) compared to segmental analysis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: