Dataset Information

Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions.

ABSTRACT: The identification of the initial contact (IC) and toe off (TO) events are crucial components of running gait analyses. To evaluate running gait in real-world settings, robust gait event detection algorithms that are based on signals from wearable sensors are needed. In this study, algorithms for identifying gait events were developed for accelerometers that were placed on the foot and low back and validated against a gold standard force plate gait event detection method. These algorithms were automated to enable the processing of large quantities of data by accommodating variability in running patterns. An evaluation of the accuracy of the algorithms was done by comparing the magnitude and variability of the difference between the back and foot methods in different running conditions, including different speeds, foot strike patterns, and outdoor running surfaces. The results show the magnitude and variability of the back-foot difference was consistent across running conditions, suggesting that the gait event detection algorithms can be used in a variety of settings. As wearable technology allows for running gait analyses to move outside of the laboratory, the use of automated accelerometer-based gait event detection methods may be helpful in the real-time evaluation of running patterns in real world conditions.

SUBMITTER: Benson LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6480623 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions.

Benson Lauren C LC Clermont Christian A CA Watari Ricky R Exley Tessa T Ferber Reed R

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20190327 7

The identification of the initial contact (IC) and toe off (TO) events are crucial components of running gait analyses. To evaluate running gait in real-world settings, robust gait event detection algorithms that are based on signals from wearable sensors are needed. In this study, algorithms for identifying gait events were developed for accelerometers that were placed on the foot and low back and validated against a gold standard force plate gait event detection method. These algorithms were a ...[more]

PMID: 30934672

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGait event detection is critical for remote gait analysis. Algorithms using a thigh-worn accelerometer for estimating spatiotemporal gait variables have demonstrated clinical utility in monitoring the gait of patients with gait and balance impairment. However, one may obtain accurate estimates of spatiotemporal variables, but with biased estimates of foot contact and foot off events. Some biomechanical analyses depend on accurate gait phase segmentation, but previous studies using a thigh-worn accelerometer have not quantified the error in estimating foot contact and foot off events.MethodsGait events and spatiotemporal gait variables were estimated using a thigh-worn accelerometer from 32 healthy subjects across a range of walking speeds (0.56-1.78 m/s). Ground truth estimates were obtained using vertical ground reaction forces measured using a pressure treadmill. Estimation performance was quantified using absolute error, root mean square error, and correlation analysis.ResultsAcross all strides (N = 3,898), the absolute error in estimating foot contact, foot off, stride time, stance time, and swing time was similar to other accelerometer-based techniques (39 ± 28 ms, 28 ± 28 ms, 11 ± 14 ms, 46 ± 31 ms, and 45 ± 30 ms, respectively). The correlation between reference measurements and estimates of bout-average stride time, stance time, and swing time were 1.00, 0.92, and 0.80, respectively. The (5th, 95th) percentiles of the foot contact and foot off estimation errors were (-91 ms, 51 ms) and (-70 ms, 60 ms), the largest of which amounts to about three samples using the 31.25 Hz sampling frequency used in this study.SignificanceUse of the proposed algorithm for estimating spatiotemporal gait variables is supported by the strong correlations with reference measurements. The gait event estimation error distributions provide bounds on the estimated gait events for enforcing gait phase-dependent task constraints for biomechanical analysis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review was to describe current study methods and challenges regarding the use of automatic trigger tool-based adverse event detection methods in electronic health records. In addition, we aimed to appraise the applied studies' designs and to synthesize estimates of adverse event prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy of automatic detection methods using manual trigger tool as a reference standard. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were queried. We included observational studies, applying trigger tools in acute care settings, and excluded studies using nonhospital and outpatient settings. Eligible articles were divided into diagnostic test accuracy studies and prevalence studies. We derived the study prevalence and estimates for the positive predictive value. We assessed bias risks and applicability concerns using Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic test accuracy studies and an in-house developed tool for prevalence studies. RESULTS:A total of 11 studies met all criteria: 2 concerned diagnostic test accuracy and 9 prevalence. We judged several studies to be at high bias risks for their automated detection method, definition of outcomes, and type of statistical analyses. Across all the 11 studies, adverse event prevalence ranged from 0% to 17.9%, with a median of 0.8%. The positive predictive value of all triggers to detect adverse events ranged from 0% to 100% across studies, with a median of 40%. Some triggers had wide ranging positive predictive value values: (1) in 6 studies, hypoglycemia had a positive predictive value ranging from 15.8% to 60%; (2) in 5 studies, naloxone had a positive predictive value ranging from 20% to 91%; (3) in 4 studies, flumazenil had a positive predictive value ranging from 38.9% to 83.3%; and (4) in 4 studies, protamine had a positive predictive value ranging from 0% to 60%. We were unable to determine the adverse event prevalence, positive predictive value, preventability, and severity in 40.4%, 10.5%, 71.1%, and 68.4% of the studies, respectively. These studies did not report the overall number of records analyzed, triggers, or adverse events; or the studies did not conduct the analysis. CONCLUSIONS:We observed broad interstudy variation in reported adverse event prevalence and positive predictive value. The lack of sufficiently described methods led to difficulties regarding interpretation. To improve quality, we see the need for a set of recommendations to endorse optimal use of research designs and adequate reporting of future adverse event detection studies.

Dataset Information

Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions.

Publications

Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets