Abstract
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) have gained popularity in gait analysis and human motion tracking, and they provide certain advantages over stationary line-of-sight-dependent Optical Motion Capture (OMC) systems. IMUs appear as an appropriate alternative solution to reduce dependency on bulky, room-based hardware and facilitate the analysis of walking patterns in clinical settings and daily life activities. However, most inertial gait analysis methods are unpractical in clinical settings due to the necessity of precise sensor placement, the need for well-performed calibration movements and poses, and due to distorted magnetometer data in indoor environments as well as nearby ferromagnetic material and electronic devices. To address these limitations, recent literature has proposed methods for self-calibrating magnetometer-free inertial motion tracking, and acceptable performance has been achieved in mechanical joints and in individuals without neurological disorders. However, the performance of such methods has not been validated in clinical settings for individuals with neurological disorders, specifically individuals with incomplete Spinal Cord Injury (iSCI). In the present study, we used recently proposed inertial motion-tracking methods, which avoid magnetometer data and leverage kinematic constraints for anatomical calibration. We used these methods to determine the range of motion of the Flexion/Extension (F/E) hip and Abduction/Adduction (A/A) angles, the F/E knee angles, and the Dorsi/Plantar (D/P) flexion ankle joint angles during walking. Data (IMU and OMC) of five individuals with no neurological disorders (control group) and five participants with iSCI walking for two minutes on a treadmill in a self-paced mode were analyzed. For validation purposes, the OMC system was considered as a reference. The mean absolute difference (MAD) between calculated range of motion of joint angles was 5.00°, 5.02°, 5.26°, and 3.72° for hip F/E, hip A/A, knee F/E, and ankle D/P flexion angles, respectively. In addition, relative stance, swing, double support phases, and cadence were calculated and validated. The MAD for the relative gait phases (stance, swing, and double support) was 1.7%, and the average cadence error was 0.09 steps/min. The MAD values for RoM and relative gait phases can be considered as clinically acceptable. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed methodology is promising, enabling non-restrictive inertial gait analysis in clinical settings.
Haji Hassani, Roushanak