Abstract

This paper presents the comparison between cooperative and local Kalman Filters (KF) for estimating the absolute segment angle, under two calibration conditions. A simplified calibration, that can be replicated in most laboratories; and a complex calibration, similar to that applied by commercial vendors. The cooperative filters use information from either all inertial sensors attached to the body, Matricial KF; or use information from the inertial sensors and the potentiometers of an exoskeleton, Markovian KF. A one minute walking trial of a subject walking with a 6-DoF exoskeleton was used to assess the absolute segment angle of the trunk, thigh, shank, and foot. The results indicate that regardless of the segment and filter applied, the more complex calibration always results in a significantly better performance compared to the simplified calibration. The interaction between filter and calibration suggests that when the quality of the calibration is unknown the Markovian KF is recommended. Applying the complex calibration, the Matricial and Markovian KF perform similarly, with average RMSE below 1.22 degrees. Cooperative KFs perform better or at least equally good as Local KF, we therefore recommend to use cooperative KFs instead of local KFs for control or analysis of walking.

Highlights

  • In the last decade advances in microelectromechanical sensors (MEMS) have propelled biomechanics applications based on inertial measurement units (IMUs) forward [1,2,3]

  • This paper presented a comparison between local and cooperative Kalman Filters to estimate the absolute segment angle

  • The filter performance was assessed under two sensor calibration conditions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the last decade advances in microelectromechanical sensors (MEMS) have propelled biomechanics applications based on inertial measurement units (IMUs) forward [1,2,3]. In many KFs accelerometers fulfill the role of inclinometers, providing the initial orientation and acting as secondary sensors to correct the gyroscope based estimate [4]. Most biomechanics applications and studies are performed with commercial off-the-shelf IMUs (e.g., Xsens, Technaid) These high-end IMUs are calibrated by the manufacturer and provide orientation based on an embedded fusion algorithm. Despite a significant body of literature dedicated to both sensor calibration and sensor fusion, currently no studies have investigated their interaction It is unknown whether limitations from simplified calibrations protocols can be aleviated by cooperative filtering, and whether the gains of more complex calibrations affect cooperative and local KFs . To facilitate the comparison between the KFs used in this study, all KFs used apply the same criterion approach to determine the reliability of the accelerometer data

Experimental Section
Protocol and Instrumentation
Data Analysis
Calibration
Local KF
Cooperative Markovian KF
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call