Abstract
Gait analysis using foot-worn inertial measurement units has proven to be a reliable tool to diagnose and monitor many neurological and musculoskeletal indications. However, only few studies have investigated the robustness of such systems to changes in the sensor attachment and no consensus for suitable sensor positions exists in the research community. Specifically for unsupervised real-world measurements, understanding how the reliability of the monitoring system changes when the sensor is attached differently is from high importance. In these scenarios, placement variations are expected because of user error or personal preferences. In this manuscript, we present the largest study to date comparing different sensor positions and attachments. We recorded 9000 strides with motion-capture reference from 14 healthy participants with six synchronized sensors attached at each foot. Spatial gait parameters were calculated using a double-integration method and compared to the reference system. The results indicate that relevant differences in the accuracy of the stride length exists between the sensor positions. While the average error over multiple strides is comparable, single stride errors and variability parameters differ greatly. We further present a physics model and an analysis of the raw sensor data to understand the origin of the observed differences. This analysis indicates that a variety of attachment parameters can influence the systems’ performance. While this is only the starting point to understand and mitigate these types of errors, we conclude that sensor systems and algorithms must be reevaluated when the sensor position or attachment changes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No. 820820. This JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Content in this publication reflects the authors' view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. This work was partially funded by the Bavarian Ministry for Economy, Regional Development & Energy via the Medical Valley Award 2017 (FallRiskPD Project). This work was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) via the project "Mobility_APP" (grant number 438496663). B. M. Eskofier gratefully acknowledges the support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the framework of the Heisenberg professorship program (grant number ES 434/8-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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:
The ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuernberg, Germany gave ethical approval for the this work under the reference number 106_13B
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
↵* arne.kuederle{at}fau.de
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://zenodo.org/record/5747173
https://zenodo.org/record/5747173
https://github.com/mad-lab-fau/sensor_position_dataset_helper
