Dataset Information

Effect of IMU Design on IMU-Derived Stride Metrics for Running.

ABSTRACT: Researchers employ foot-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) to estimate the three-dimensional trajectory of the feet as well as a rich array of gait parameters. However, the accuracy of those estimates depends critically on the limitations of the accelerometers and angular velocity gyros embedded in the IMU design. In this study, we reveal the effects of accelerometer range, gyro range, and sampling frequency on gait parameters (e.g., distance traveled, stride length, and stride angle) estimated using the zero-velocity update (ZUPT) method. The novelty and contribution of this work are that it: (1) quantifies these effects at mean speeds commensurate with competitive distance running (up to 6.4 m/s); (2) identifies the root causes of inaccurate foot trajectory estimates obtained from the ZUPT method; and (3) offers important engineering recommendations for selecting accurate IMUs for studying human running. The results demonstrate that the accuracy of the estimated gait parameters generally degrades with increased mean running speed and with decreased accelerometer range, gyro range, and sampling frequency. In particular, the saturation of the accelerometer and/or gyro induced during running for some IMU designs may render those designs highly inaccurate for estimating gait parameters.

SUBMITTER: Potter MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6603669 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of IMU Design on IMU-Derived Stride Metrics for Running.

Potter Michael V MV Ojeda Lauro V LV Perkins Noel C NC Cain Stephen M SM

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20190607 11

Researchers employ foot-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) to estimate the three-dimensional trajectory of the feet as well as a rich array of gait parameters. However, the accuracy of those estimates depends critically on the limitations of the accelerometers and angular velocity gyros embedded in the IMU design. In this study, we reveal the effects of accelerometer range, gyro range, and sampling frequency on gait parameters (e.g., distance traveled, stride length, and stride angle) est ...[more]

PMID: 31181688

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStress fractures are injuries caused by repetitive loading during activities such as running. The application of advanced analytical methods such as machine learning to data from multiple wearable sensors has allowed for predictions of biomechanical variables associated with running-related injuries like stress fractures. However, it is unclear if data from a single wearable sensor can accurately estimate variables that characterize external loading during running such as peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), vertical impulse, and ground contact time. Predicting these biomechanical variables with a single wearable sensor could allow researchers, clinicians, and coaches to longitudinally monitor biomechanical running-related injury risk factors without expensive force-measuring equipment.PurposeWe quantified the accuracy of applying quantile regression forest (QRF) and linear regression (LR) models to sacral-mounted accelerometer data to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and ground contact time across a range of running speeds.MethodsThirty-seven collegiate cross country runners (24 females, 13 males) ran on a force-measuring treadmill at 3.8-5.4 m/s while wearing an accelerometer clipped posteriorly to the waistband of their running shorts. We cross-validated QRF and LR models by training them on acceleration data, running speed, step frequency, and body mass as predictor variables. Trained models were then used to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time. We compared predicted values to those calculated from a force-measuring treadmill on a subset of data (n = 9) withheld during model training. We quantified prediction accuracy by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).ResultsThe QRF model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.150 body weights (BW) and MAPE of 4.27 ± 2.85%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.004 BW*s and MAPE of 0.80 ± 0.91%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.011 s and MAPE of 4.68 ± 3.00%. The LR model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.139 BW and MAPE of 4.04 ± 2.57%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.002 BW*s and MAPE of 0.50 ± 0.42%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.008 s and MAPE of 3.50 ± 2.27%. There were no statistically significant differences between QRF and LR model prediction MAPE for peak vGRF (p = 0.549) or vertical impulse (p = 0.073), but the LR model's MAPE for contact time was significantly lower than the QRF model's MAPE (p = 0.0497).ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the QRF and LR models can accurately predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time (MAPE < 5%) from a single sacral-mounted accelerometer across a range of running speeds. These findings may be beneficial for researchers, clinicians, or coaches seeking to monitor running-related injury risk factors without force-measuring equipment.

Project description:Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently.The Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069).The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.Clinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

Project description:Variability is ubiquitous in human movement, arising from internal and external noise, inherent biological redundancy, and from the neurophysiological control actions that help regulate movement fluctuations. Increased walking variability can lead to increased energetic cost and/or increased fall risk. Conversely, biological noise may be beneficial, even necessary, to enhance motor performance. Indeed, encouraging more variability actually facilitates greater improvements in some forms of locomotor rehabilitation. Thus, it is critical to identify the fundamental principles humans use to regulate stride-to-stride fluctuations in walking. This study sought to determine how humans regulate stride-to-stride fluctuations in stepping movements during treadmill walking. We developed computational models based on pre-defined goal functions to compare if subjects, from each stride to the next, tried to maintain the same speed as the treadmill, or instead stay in the same position on the treadmill. Both strategies predicted average behaviors empirically indistinguishable from each other and from that of humans. These strategies, however, predicted very different stride-to-stride fluctuation dynamics. Comparisons to experimental data showed that human stepping movements were generally well-predicted by the speed-control model, but not by the position-control model. Human subjects also exhibited no indications they corrected deviations in absolute position only intermittently: i.e., closer to the boundaries of the treadmill. Thus, humans clearly do not adopt a control strategy whose primary goal is to maintain some constant absolute position on the treadmill. Instead, humans appear to regulate their stepping movements in a way most consistent with a strategy whose primary goal is to try to maintain the same speed as the treadmill at each consecutive stride. These findings have important implications both for understanding how biological systems regulate walking in general and for being able to harness these mechanisms to develop more effective rehabilitation interventions to improve locomotor performance.

Dataset Information

Effect of IMU Design on IMU-Derived Stride Metrics for Running.

Publications

Effect of IMU Design on IMU-Derived Stride Metrics for Running.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure