Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validity and Sensitivity of an Inertial Measurement Unit-Driven Biomechanical Model of Motor Variability for Gait
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validity and Sensitivity of an Inertial Measurement Unit-Driven Biomechanical Model of Motor Variability for Gait
Do you wish to request the book?
Validity and Sensitivity of an Inertial Measurement Unit-Driven Biomechanical Model of Motor Variability for Gait
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validity and Sensitivity of an Inertial Measurement Unit-Driven Biomechanical Model of Motor Variability for Gait
2021
Overview
Motor variability in gait is frequently linked to fall risk, yet field-based biomechanical joint evaluations are scarce. We evaluated the validity and sensitivity of an inertial measurement unit (IMU)-driven biomechanical model of joint angle variability for gait. Fourteen healthy young adults completed seven-minute trials of treadmill gait at several speeds and arm swing amplitudes. Trunk, pelvis, and lower-limb joint kinematics were estimated by IMU- and optoelectronic-based models using OpenSim. We calculated range of motion (ROM), magnitude of variability (meanSD), local dynamic stability (λmax), persistence of ROM fluctuations (DFAα), and regularity (SaEn) of each angle over 200 continuous strides, and evaluated model accuracy (RMSD: root mean square difference), consistency (ICC2,1: intraclass correlation), biases, limits of agreement, and sensitivity to within-participant gait responses (effects of speed and swing). RMSDs of joint angles were 1.7–9.2° (pooled mean of 4.8°), excluding ankle inversion. ICCs were mostly good to excellent in the primary plane of motion for ROM and in all planes for meanSD and λmax, but were poor to moderate for DFAα and SaEn. Modelled speed and swing responses for ROM, meanSD, and λmax were similar. Results suggest that the IMU-driven model is valid and sensitive for field-based assessments of joint angle time series, ROM in the primary plane of motion, magnitude of variability, and local dynamic stability.
