PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Comparing sparse inertial sensor setups for sagittal-plane walking and running reconstructions.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Dorschky, E.* ; Nitschké, M.J.E.* ; Mayer, M.* ; Weygers, I.* ; Gassner, H.* ; Seel, T.* ; Eskofier, B.M. ; Koelewijn, A.D.*

Comparing sparse inertial sensor setups for sagittal-plane walking and running reconstructions.

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 13:1507162 (2025)

Publ. Version/Full Text

Research data

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

Estimating spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic movement variables with little obtrusion to the user is critical for clinical and sports applications. One possible approach is using a sparse inertial sensor setup, where sensors are not placed on all relevant body segments. Here, we investigated if movement variables can be estimated similarly accurate from sparse sensor setups as from a full lower-body sensor setup. We estimated the variables by solving optimal control problems with sagittal plane lower-body musculoskeletal models, in which we minimized an objective that combined tracking of accelerometer and gyroscope data with minimizing muscular effort. We created simulations for 10 participants at three walking and three running speeds, using seven sensor setups with between two and seven sensors located at the feet, shank, thighs, and/or pelvis. We found that differences between variables estimated from inertial sensors and those from optical motion capture were small for all sensor setups. Including all sensors did not necessarily lead to the smallest root mean square deviations (RMSDs) and highest coefficients of determination ( R 2 ). Setups without a pelvis sensor led to too much forward trunk lean and inaccurate spatiotemporal variables. Mean RMSDs were highest for the setup with two foot-worn inertial sensors (largest error in knee angle during running: 18 deg vs. 11 deg for the full lower-body setup), and ranged between 4.8-18 deg for the joint angles, between 1.0-5.4 BW BH% for the joint moments, and between 0.03 BW-0.49 BW for the ground reaction forces. We found strong or moderate relationships ( R 2 > 0.5 ) on average for all kinematic and kinetic variables, except for the hip and knee moment for five out of the seven setups. The large range of the coefficient of determination for most kinetic variables indicated individual differences in simulation quality. Therefore, we conclude that we can perform a comprehensive sagittal-plane motion analysis with sparse sensor setups as accurately as with a full sensor setup with sensors on the feet and on either the pelvis or the thighs. Such a sparse sensor setup enables comprehensive movement analysis outside the laboratory, by increasing usability of inertial sensors.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

4.800

0.000