Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational balance tests (e.g., Berg Balance Scale) are used to evaluate fall-risk. However, they tend to be subjective, and their reliability and sensitivity can be limited. The use of in-lab equipment for objective balance evaluation has not been common in clinical practice, due to the requirement of an equipped lab space. While inertial measurement units (IMUs) enable objective out-of-lab balance assessment, their accuracy has not been validated. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of IMUs against in-lab equipment for characterizing standing balance. Ten non-disabled individuals participated in a two-minute standing test on a force-plate. Four approaches were used for estimating inter-segmental moments and center of pressure (COP) position in a four-segment model: (1) camera-based bottom-up approach; (2) camera-based top-down approach; (3) IMU-based (accelerometer) top-down approach; and (4) IMU-based (accelerometer and gyroscope) top-down approach. Approaches 2 to 4 resulted in high accuracy compared to the reference, Approach 1. The root-mean-square errors in estimating the segments' orientation, ground reaction forces, COP position, and joint moments were smaller than 0.3°, 0.2 N/kg, 1.5 mm, and 0.016N·m/kg, respectively. Since no significant differences were observed between the accuracy of Approaches 3 and 4, only accelerometer recordings are needed and could be recommended for monitoring standing balance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noamani et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: