Validity Of Inertial Measurement Unit Research Articles

Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices

Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices

The validation of inertial measurement units in upper limb movement during wheelchair activity

Introduction: 3D motion capture is accepted to be the gold standard approach to all data collection for the production of accurate data, however, in recent literature the ecological validity of 3D systems has come into question. This has brought about the use of Inertial measurement units (IMU’s) and the investigation into their accuracy in enabling accurate real life scenario data collection. The depth of research on IMU’s in wheelchair data collection is limited, and at current there is limited attempts at a validation in comparison to an established data collection software. This research aims to validate basic upper body motions seen within wheelchair propulsion in an attempt to identify the current limitations of IMU’s. Methods: numerous IMU placements and calibration stances were investigated for the collection of elbow flexion and shoulder flexion. IMU’s for elbow flexion were placed at the wrist and central on the forearm. For shoulder flexion the IMU was placed 1 cm above the elbow joint. During the calibration phase, standing anatomical position with thumbs forwards, palms outwards, bent elbow and straight arms outwards at 90° for elbow and shoulder flexion, respectively. For both shoulder and elbow flexion, the participant started at a neutral position and moved through to 90° of flexion and returned to starting position. Quintic was used as the validated software. Results: the wrist placed IMU determined elbow flexion more accurately than the forearm placed IMU. Range of motion for both shoulder and elbow flexion were well calculated within several degrees when using the anatomical thumbs forwards calibration pose; with 99.97 and 89.69°, respectively compared to 88.48 and 97.32°. However, the degree of elbow flexion was overestimated with a difference of 27.78°, with the IMU being 91.11° and quintic being 63.33°. Similar results were also seen for the prediction of elbow flexion during the starting phase with a difference of 26.58°. Discussion: with range of motion accurately calculated in comparison to quintic, and shoulder flexion maximum and minimum values also being similar when segment angle was calculated. Then the differences are likely due to error in the calculation of joint angle using a calculation of global coordinate system from the IMU coordinate system during data processing. Therefore, future research should target alternate approaches to data processing in order to reduce the errors seen.

Validity of Inertial Measurement Units to Measure Lower-Limb Kinematics and Pelvic Orientation at Submaximal and Maximal Effort Running Speeds

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been validated for measuring sagittal plane lower-limb kinematics during moderate-speed running, but their accuracy at maximal speeds remains less understood. This study aimed to assess IMU measurement accuracy during high-speed running and maximal effort sprinting on a curved non-motorized treadmill using discrete (Bland–Altman analysis) and continuous (root mean square error [RMSE], normalised RMSE, Pearson correlation, and statistical parametric mapping analysis [SPM]) metrics. The hip, knee, and ankle flexions and the pelvic orientation (tilt, obliquity, and rotation) were captured concurrently from both IMU and optical motion capture systems, as 20 participants ran steadily at 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of their maximal effort sprinting speed (5.36 ± 0.55, 6.02 ± 0.60, 6.66 ± 0.71, and 7.09 ± 0.73 m/s, respectively). Bland–Altman analysis indicated a systematic bias within ±1° for the peak pelvic tilt, rotation, and lower-limb kinematics and −3.3° to −4.1° for the pelvic obliquity. The SPM analysis demonstrated a good agreement in the hip and knee flexion angles for most phases of the stride cycle, albeit with significant differences noted around the ipsilateral toe-off. The RMSE ranged from 4.3° (pelvic obliquity at 70% speed) to 7.8° (hip flexion at 100% speed). Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.44 (pelvic tilt at 90%) to 0.99 (hip and knee flexions at all speeds). Running speed minimally but significantly affected the RMSE for the hip and ankle flexions. The present IMU system is effective for measuring lower-limb kinematics during sprinting, but the pelvic orientation estimation was less accurate.

Validation of Inertial Measurement Units for Analyzing Golf Swing Rotational Biomechanics.

Training devices to enhance golf swing technique are increasingly in demand. Golf swing biomechanics are typically assessed in a laboratory setting and not readily accessible. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer improved access as they are wearable, cost-effective, and user-friendly. This study investigates the accuracy of IMU-based golf swing kinematics of upper torso and pelvic rotation compared to lab-based 3D motion capture. Thirty-six male and female professional and amateur golfers participated in the study, nine in each sub-group. Golf swing rotational kinematics, including upper torso and pelvic rotation, pelvic rotational velocity, S-factor (shoulder obliquity), O-factor (pelvic obliquity), and X-factor were compared. Strong positive correlations between IMU and 3D motion capture were found for all parameters; Intraclass Correlations ranged from 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89, 0.93) for O-factor to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.00) for upper torso rotation; Pearson coefficients ranged from 0.92 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.93) for O-factor to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.00) for upper torso rotation (p < 0.001 for all). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement between the two methods; absolute mean differences ranged from 0.61 to 1.67 degrees. Results suggest that IMUs provide a practical and viable alternative for golf swing analysis, offering golfers accessible and wearable biomechanical feedback to enhance performance. Furthermore, integrating IMUs into golf coaching can advance swing analysis and personalized training protocols. In conclusion, IMUs show significant promise as cost-effective and practical devices for golf swing analysis, benefiting golfers across all skill levels and providing benchmarks for training.

Validation of inertial measurement units to detect and predict horse behaviour while stabled.

Musculoskeletal injuries are observed in Thoroughbred racehorses and may become catastrophic. Currently, there are limited methods for early detection of such injuries. Most injuries develop gradually due to accumulated damage, providing the opportunity for early detection. Horses experiencing pain or lameness may exhibit changes in behaviour so the development of an objective, real-time system monitoring horse behaviour may enable detection of bone injuries before catastrophic failure. To determine whether intensive observational methods of assessing horse behaviour can be replaced by use of inertial measurement units (IMUs). Validation study assessing IMU use against video observation. Six hospitalised Thoroughbreds (algorithm training data) and 19 Thoroughbred racehorses in-training (algorithm testing data) were equipped with an IMU placed on the lateral side of both forelimbs (left fore, LF; right fore, RF) and monitored in a stable for 4 h. An algorithm was developed to classify behaviour and then validated against video recordings. Standing was the most prevalent behaviour (LF 88.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 88.7-89.0; RF 88.5%, 95% CI 88.4-88.7). IMU classification of recumbent and standing activities showed excellent agreement (sensitivity) with video observation (>98%). This was followed by stepping (LF 89.4%, RF 85.5%) then weight-shifting (LF 54.3%, RF 61.5%). Predictions from the algorithm showed misclassification of 2.5% (LF 5500/225 352, RF 5218/210 170). Excluding standing, misclassification was 6.8% (1705/25 158) and 7.5% (1812/24 077) for the left and right forelimbs, respectively, with pawing and weight-shifting most frequently misclassified. Increasing the number of horses and types of behaviours observed may improve predictions. IMUs displayed a high sensitivity to movement on a small number of horses, and with further validation they have the potential to effectively monitor behaviour of racehorses in training. However, more sensitive methods may be needed to validate the classification of weight-shifting behaviour. Future studies should evaluate the association between each behaviour and musculoskeletal injury.

A pilot case series for concurrent validation of inertial measurement units to motion capture in individuals who use unilateral lower-limb prostheses.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) may be viable options to collect gait data in clinics. This study compared IMU to motion capture data in individuals who use unilateral lower-limb prostheses. Participants walked with lower-body IMUs and reflective markers in a motion analysis space. Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle waveforms were extracted for the entire gait cycle. Discrete points of peak flexion, peak extension, and range of motion were extracted from the waveforms. Stance times were also extracted to assess the IMU software's accuracy at detecting gait events. IMU and motion capture-derived data were compared using absolute differences and root mean square error (RMSE). Five individuals (n = 3 transtibial; n = 2 transfemoral) participated. IMU prosthetic limb data was similar to motion capture (RMSE: waveform ≤4.65°; discrete point ≤9.04°; stance ≤0.03s). However, one transfemoral participant had larger differences at the microprocessor knee joint (RMSE: waveform ≤15.64°; discrete ≤29.21°) from IMU magnetometer interference. Intact limbs tended to have minimal differences between IMU and motion capture data (RMSE: waveform ≤6.33°; discrete ≤9.87°; stance ≤0.04s). Findings from this pilot study suggest IMUs have the potential to collect data similar to motion capture systems in sagittal plane kinematics and stance time.

Concurrent Validity Of Inertial Measurement Units To Measure Joint Angles During Gait

Concurrent Validity Of Inertial Measurement Units To Measure Joint Angles During Gait

Assessing the validity of inertial measurement units for shoulder kinematics using a commercial sensor-software system: A validation study.

Background and AimsWearable inertial sensors may offer additional kinematic parameters of the shoulder compared to traditional instruments such as goniometers when elaborate and time‐consuming data processing procedures are undertaken. However, in clinical practice simple‐real time motion analysis is required to improve clinical reasoning. Therefore, the aim was to assess the criterion validity between a portable “off‐the‐shelf” sensor‐software system (IMU) and optical motion (Mocap) for measuring kinematic parameters during active shoulder movements.Methods24 healthy participants (9 female, 15 male, age 29 ± 4 years, height 177 ± 11 cm, weight 73 ± 14 kg) were included. Range of motion (ROM), total range of motion (TROM), peak and mean angular velocity of both systems were assessed during simple (abduction/adduction, horizontal flexion/horizontal extension, vertical flexion/extension, and external/internal rotation) and complex shoulder movements. Criterion validity was determined using intraclass‐correlation coefficients (ICC), root mean square error (RMSE) and Bland and Altmann analysis (bias; upper and lower limits of agreement).ResultsROM and TROM analysis revealed inconsistent validity during simple (ICC: 0.040−0.733, RMSE: 9.7°−20.3°, bias: 1.2°−50.7°) and insufficient agreement during complex shoulder movements (ICC: 0.104−0.453, RMSE: 10.1°−23.3°, bias: 1.0°−55.9°). Peak angular velocity (ICC: 0.202−0.865, RMSE: 14.6°/s−26.7°/s, bias: 10.2°/s−29.9°/s) and mean angular velocity (ICC: 0.019‐0.786, RMSE:6.1°/s−34.2°/s, bias: 1.6°/s−27.8°/s) were inconsistent.ConclusionsThe “off‐the‐shelf” sensor‐software system showed overall insufficient agreement with the gold standard. Further development of commercial IMU‐software‐solutions may increase measurement accuracy and permit their integration into everyday clinical practice.

Concurrent validity of an easy-to-use inertial measurement unit-system to evaluate sagittal plane segment kinematics during overground sprinting at different speeds

ABSTRACT This study investigated concurrent validity of inertial measurement units (IMUs) and high-speed video for sagittal plane kinematics during overground sprinting. The practical relevance is demonstrated by reporting the changes in thigh kinematics in relation to toe-off and touch-down of the feet at near maximal to maximal (80–100%) speeds. Sixteen athletes ran multiple 60 m sprints with IMUs on their feet, shanks, thighs, pelvis and trunk. High-speed video data were captured of the start strides and of one complete stride at full speed. Coefficients of multiple correlation with video were >0.99 for angles and angular velocities of the thigh and shank but low for the pelvis and trunk (0.13–0.66). For the limb segment angles (minimum, maximum, at toe-off and at touch-down) absolute biases (limits of agreement) were ≤2.9°(≤7.7°) and for angular velocities the values were ≤57°.s−1(≤93°.s−1). Many of the expected speed-related changes in thigh kinematics were significant (linear mixed effect regression; p < 0.05). In conclusion, an easy-to-use IMU system has good concurrent validity with video, especially for the thigh. It registers the kinematics of all strides in multiple sprints and can detect relatively small changes thereof, including those at key moments of foot-touch-down and toe-off.

Validation of inertial measurement units for the assessment of trunk control in subjects with spinal cord injury

Background: Trunk control (TC) constitutes one of the main objectives in the rehabilitation of people with a spinal cord injury (SCI), but there are few clinically validated tests to assess it. Accelerometers have been proposed as sensitive and suitable procedures to assess TC. Objective: To evaluate test–retest reliability, construct and criterion validity of accelerometer parameters to assess TC in people with SCI. Methods: A cross-sectional study of simultaneous application of Clinical Trunk Control Test (CTCT) and accelerometer evaluation was conducted. Accelerometers were placed on the trunks of 27 people with SCI and 15 people without SCI. Reliability was assessed by three repeated measures in random order of selected static and dynamic TC tasks. Acceleration on three axes was analyzed using five metrics. Criterion validity was assessed by analyzing correlation of acceleration to CTCT scores. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing capacity of inertial measurement units (IMU) to differentiate individual’s characteristics, ASIA Impairment scale, gait capacity, level of TC, and neurological level of injury. Results: Reliable IMU data were obtained in people with SCI and without SCI, of all accelerometer axes, metrics, and tested items of the CTCT. Reliability of acceleration decreases with the increasing demand for TC tasks. Ten acceleration parameters showed construct and criterion validity. Conclusion: Accelerometer parameters are reliable, valid, and sensitive to evaluate TC in people with SCI. Significance: A set of IMU parameters were validated as reliable and valid measures to evaluate TC, which could be useful for the assessment of progression of people with SCI and clinical interventions.

Using wearable sensors to characterize gait after spinal cord injury: evaluation of test-retest reliability and construct validity.

Quantitative cross-sectional study. Evaluate the test-retest reliability and the construct validity of inertial measurement units (IMU) to characterize spatiotemporal gait parameters in individuals with SCI. Two SCI rehabilitation centers in Canada. Eighteen individuals with SCI participated in two evaluation sessions spaced 2 weeks apart. Fifteen able-bodied individuals were also recruited. Participants walked 20 m overground under five conditions that challenged balance to varying degrees. Five IMU were attached to the lower-extremities and the sacrum to collect the mean and the coefficient of variation of five gait parameters (gait cycle time, double-support percentage, cadence, stride length, stride velocity). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare the five walking conditions to evaluate known-group validity while Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to characterize the level of association between gait parameters and the Mini BESTest (MBT). Cadence was reliable across all walking conditions. Reliability was higher for the mean (ICC = 0.55-0.98) of the parameters compared to their coefficient of variation (ICC = 0.16-0.97). Cadence collected with IMU had construct validity as their values differed across walking conditions and groups of participants. The coefficient of variation was generally better than the mean to show differences across the five walking conditions. The MBT was moderately to strongly associated with mean cadence (ρ ≥ 0.498) and its coefficient of variation (ρ ≤ -0.49) during most walking conditions. IMU provide reliable and valid measurements of gait parameters in ambulatory individuals with SCI.

Inertial measurement unit-based hip flexion test as an indicator of sprint performance

ABSTRACTThis study aimed 1) to examine the validity of inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based hip flexion strength test, and 2) to investigate the hip flexion strength test as an indicator of sprint performance. Eight males performed five repeated hip flexion-extension, while leg motion was recorded using an IMU and a motion capture system (Mocap). As the second experiment, 24 male athletes performed the IMU-based hip flexion strength test and sprinted 50 m, during which step-to-step ground reaction force (GRF) was recorded. The strength test variables were calculated using IMU and Mocap data including angular impulse, mean moment, and positive and negative work and power. Using GRF data, step-to-step spatiotemporal variables were obtained. The results showed high intra-class correlation coefficient and correlation coefficient (both >0.909) between IMU and Mocap for angular impulse, mean moment, positive work and power. The hip flexion mean moment showed significant correlation with running speed from the 5th–8th step section onwards. The angular impulse, mean moment, positive work and power are recommended to be used for the IMU-based hip flexion strength test variables in terms of accuracy and validity. Moreover, the proposed IMU-based hip flexion strength test can be an indicator for better sprinting performance.

Cross-sectional validation of inertial measurement units for estimating trunk flexion kinematics during treadmill disturbances

Postural perturbation training has been shown to reduce falls. The key outcome measures are trunk flexion kinematics, at recovery step. Motion capture is typically used, but requires space and trained staff. Small, inexpensive, portable inertial measurement units (IMU) are preferred for routine clinical care. IMUs have been validated for trunk motion during walking and running on a treadmill, however treadmill fall prevention training generates higher accelerations. The purpose of this study was to validate the IMU estimate of trunk kinematics against motion capture during treadmill disturbances. Ten healthy young adults had an IMU with a retro-reflective marker triad placed on their sternum to estimate trunk kinematics. Disturbances, increasing in magnitude, were delivered until the harness supported at least 50% of the subject's weight. Equivalence testing (α = 0.05) demonstrated the trunk angle (TA) and angular velocity (TAV) measured by the IMU and motion capture were equivalent. The 95% Confidence Intervals (TA: [-1, 1], TAV: [0, 17]) were within the equivalence interval (TA: [−2, 2], TAV: [−20, 20]) and the p-Values (TA: 0.005, TAV: 0.011) were less than alpha. This data confirms that IMUs provide a valid method for measuring trunk kinematics during treadmill perturbation training.

Validity of inertial measurement unit–based knee flexion strength-power test

This study aimed to examine the concurrent validity of inertial measurement unit–based knee flexion strength-power test variables. Ten physically active males performed a knee flexion strength-power test, consisting of serial right knee flexion-extension motions. Two trials were performed, each at 50%, 75% and 100% effort. Lower-extremity motion during the trial was recorded using a motion capture system and an inertial measurement unit. For inertial measurement unit data, the measured length of each lower-extremity segment was used to estimate segment endpoint coordinates. Knee flexion kinetic variables were then computed using inverse dynamics analysis for both systems. The inertial measurement unit provided comparable values with the motion capture system for angular impulse, mean moment, positive work and mean power (−0.8%, 1.0%, −0.9%, and 1.5%, respectively). Moreover, intraclass correlation coefficients and correlation coefficients for angular impulse, mean moment, positive work and mean power of knee flexion were acceptably high (ICC or r = 0.903–0.970). For positive mean power, however, a Bland–Altman plot showed heteroscedasticity. For knee flexion negative work and mean power, the inertial measurement unit clearly showed an overestimation of the values (32.5% and 23.5%, respectively). Moreover, the intraclass correlation coefficients and correlation coefficients were not acceptably high for knee flexion negative work and mean power (ICC or r = 0.541–0.899). These results indicate that the angular impulse, mean moment and positive work can be measured accurately and validly using an inertial measurement unit for knee flexion strength-power test variables. Given its simplicity, the suggested inertial measurement unit–based knee flexion strength-power test would improve on-the-field physical fitness evaluation.

Validity of Wearable Sensors at the Shoulder Joint: Combining Wireless Electromyography Sensors and Inertial Measurement Units to Perform Physical Workplace Assessments.

Background: Workplace adaptation is the preferred method of intervention to diminish risk factors associated with the development of work-related shoulder disorders. However, the majority of the workplace assessments performed are subjective (e.g., questionnaires). Quantitative assessments are required to support workplace adaptations. The aims of this study are to assess the concurrent validity of inertial measurement units (IMUs; MVN, Xsens) in comparison to a motion capture system (Vicon) during lifting tasks, and establish the discriminative validity of a wireless electromyography (EMG) system for the evaluation of muscle activity. Methods: Sixteen participants performed 12 simple tasks (shoulder flexion, abduction, scaption) and 16 complex lifting tasks (lifting crates of different weights at different heights). A Delsys Trigno EMG system was used to record anterior and middle deltoids’ EMG activity, while the Xsens and Vicon simultaneously recorded shoulder kinematics. Results: For IMUs, correlation coefficients were high (simple task: >0.968; complex task: >0.84) and RMSEs were low (simple task: <6.72°; complex task: <11.5°). For EMG, a significant effect of weight, height and a weight x height interaction (anterior: p < 0.001; middle: p < 0.03) were observed for RMS EMG activity. Conclusions: These results suggest that wireless EMG and IMUs are valid units that can be used to measure physical demand in workplace assessments.

Validation of inertial measurement units with optical tracking system in patients operated with Total hip arthroplasty

BackgroundPatient reported outcome measurement (PROMs) will not capture in detail the functional joint motion before and after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, methods more specifically aimed to analyse joint movements may be of interest. An analysis method that addresses these issues should be readily accessible and easy to use especially if applied to large groups of patients, who you want to study both before and after a surgical intervention such as THA. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of inertial measurement units (IMU) by comparison with an optical tracking system (OTS) to record pelvic tilt, hip and knee flexion in patients who had undergone THA.Methods49 subjects, 25 males 24 females, mean age of 73 years (range 51–80) with THA participated. All patients were measured with a portable IMU system, with sensors attached lateral to the pelvis, the thigh and the lower leg. For validation, a 12-camera motion capture system was used to determine the positions of 15 skin markers (Oqus 4, Qualisys AB, Sweden). Comparison of sagittal pelvic rotations, and hip and knee flexion-extension motions measured with the two systems was performed. The mean values of the IMU’s on the left and right sides were compared with OTS data.ResultsThe comparison between the two gait analysis methods showed no significant difference for mean pelvic tilt range (4.9–5.4 degrees) or mean knee flexion range (54.4–55.1 degrees) on either side (p > 0.7). The IMU system did however record slightly less hip flexion on both sides (36.7–37.7 degrees for the OTS compared to 34.0–34.4 degrees for the IMU, p < 0.001).ConclusionsWe found that inertial measurement units can produce valid kinematic data of pelvis- and knee flexion-extension range. Slightly less hip flexion was however recorded with the inertial measurement units which may be due to the difference in the modelling of the pelvis, soft tissue artefacts, and malalignment between the two methods or misplacement of the inertial measurement units.Trial registrationThe study has ethical approval from the ethical committee “Regionala etikprövningsnämnden i Göteborg” (Dnr: 611–15, 2015-08-27) and all study participants have submitted written approval for participation in the study.

Use of inertial measurement units for measuring torso and pelvis orientation, and shoulder–pelvis separation angle in the discus throw

Wearable technologies, such as inertial measurement units, are being increasingly utilised in sport to provide immediate feedback to athletes and coaches on movement dynamics. This study examines the validity of inertial measurement units for measuring data pertinent to discus throwing namely shoulder–pelvis separation angle, and torso and pelvis transverse plane orientation. Five discus throwers performed 10 throws, while shoulder–pelvis separation angle, and torso and pelvis transverse plane orientation were measured simultaneously using a motion capture system and inertial measurement unit system. Time-series torso and pelvis orientation data were compared to determine the validity of the inertial measurement unit system for measuring the segment orientation. Discrete shoulder–pelvis separation angle data were compared to determine the validity of the inertial measurement unit system for measuring the discrete data pertinent to discus throwers and coaches. Discrete data examined were magnitudes of separation that occurred when the torso was maximally rotated to the left and right. Data were compared using root mean square difference and root mean square relative to angle range (RMS%). Bland–Altman analyses were also performed. Torso (RMS% = 3%) and pelvis (RMS% = 2%) orientation data agreed closely. Agreement was lower for separation angle (maximum left rotation RMS% = 9%; maximum right rotation RMS% = 13%). Bland–Altman biases indicate inertial measurement units underestimated segment orientation, underestimated maximum right rotation, and overestimated maximum left rotation. The protocol described was valid for measuring the torso and pelvis orientation. Separation angle validity was low, indicating differences in underlying modelling approaches. Further investigation is needed to examine more optimal sensor positioning, and novel ways of examining shoulder–pelvis dynamics.

Player Monitoring in Indoor Team Sports: Concurrent Validity of Inertial Measurement Units to Quantify Average and Peak Acceleration Values.

The increasing interest in assessing physical demands in team sports has led to the development of multiple sports related monitoring systems. Due to technical limitations, these systems primarily could be applied to outdoor sports, whereas an equivalent indoor locomotion analysis is not established yet. Technological development of inertial measurement units (IMU) broadens the possibilities for player monitoring and enables the quantification of locomotor movements in indoor environments. The aim of the current study was to validate an IMU measuring by determining average and peak human acceleration under indoor conditions in team sport specific movements. Data of a single wearable tracking device including an IMU (Optimeye S5, Catapult Sports, Melbourne, Australia) were compared to the results of a 3D motion analysis (MA) system (Vicon Motion Systems, Oxford, UK) during selected standardized movement simulations in an indoor laboratory (n = 56). A low-pass filtering method for gravity correction (LF) and two sensor fusion algorithms for orientation estimation [Complementary Filter (CF), Kalman-Filter (KF)] were implemented and compared with MA system data. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between LF and MA data but not between sensor fusion algorithms and MA. Higher precision and lower relative errors were found for CF (RMSE = 0.05; CV = 2.6%) and KF (RMSE = 0.15; CV = 3.8%) both compared to the LF method (RMSE = 1.14; CV = 47.6%) regarding the magnitude of the resulting vector and strongly emphasize the implementation of orientation estimation to accurately describe human acceleration. Comparing both sensor fusion algorithms, CF revealed slightly lower errors than KF and additionally provided valuable information about positive and negative acceleration values in all three movement planes with moderate to good validity (CV = 3.9 – 17.8%). Compared to x- and y-axis superior results were found for the z-axis. These findings demonstrate that IMU-based wearable tracking devices can successfully be applied for athlete monitoring in indoor team sports and provide potential to accurately quantify accelerations and decelerations in all three orthogonal axes with acceptable validity. An increase in accuracy taking magnetometers in account should be specifically pursued by future research.

Validation of Inertial Measurement Units for Upper Body Kinematics.

The purpose of this study was to validate a commercially available inertial measurement unit (IMU) system against a standard lab-based motion capture system for the measurement of shoulder elevation, elbow flexion, trunk flexion/extension, and neck flexion/extension kinematics. The validation analyses were applied to 6 surgical faculty members performing a standard, simulated surgical training task that mimics minimally invasive surgery. Three-dimensional joint kinematics were simultaneously recorded by an optical motion capture system and an IMU system with 6 sensors placed on the head, chest, and bilateral upper and lower arms. The sensor-to-segment axes alignment was accomplished manually. The IMU neck and trunk IMU flexion/extension angles were accurate to within 2.9 ± 0.9 degrees and 1.6 ± 1.1°, respectively. The IMU shoulder elevation measure was accurate to within 6.8 ± 2.7° and the elbow flexion measure was accurate to within 8.2 ± 2.8°. In the Bland-Altman analyses, there were no significant systematic errors present; however, there was a significant inversely proportional error across all joints. As the gold standard measurement increased, the IMU underestimated the magnitude of the joint angle. This study reports acceptable accuracy of a commercially available IMU system; however, results should be interpreted as protocol specific.

Static and dynamic validation of inertial measurement units

Optical motion capture systems are used to assess human motion. While these systems provide a reliable analysis, they limit collection to a laboratory based setting. Devices such as Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) have been developed as alternative tools. Commercially available IMUs are utilized for a variety of applications; however limited work has been done to determine the reliability of these devices. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and precision of a commercially available IMU, containing tri-axial accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers, under controlled static and dynamic conditions. The sensor output was validated against the gold standard measures of custom made mechanical testing apparatuses. The IMUs provide an accurate (within 0.6°) and precise (within 0.1°) measurement of static sensor orientation and an accurate (within 4.4° per second) and precise (within 0.2° per second) representation of angular velocity. The sensors are more accurate at lower velocities, but the percent error remains relatively constant across all angular velocities. Inclusion of IMUs as an appropriate measurement tool should be based on the application, specific demands and necessary reliability.