Emma Fortune

Validity of using tri-axial accelerometers to measure human movement – Part II: Step counts at a wide range of gait velocities

A subject-specific step counting method with a high accuracy level at all walking speeds is needed to assess the functional level of impaired patients. The study aim was to validate step counts and cadence calculations from acceleration data by comparison to video data during dynamic activity. Custom-built activity monitors, each containing one tri-axial accelerometer, were placed on the ankles, thigh, and waist of 11 healthy adults. ICC values were greater than 0.98 for video inter-rater reliability of all step counts. The activity monitoring system (AMS) algorithm demonstrated a median (interquartile range; IQR) agreement of 92% (8%) with visual observations during walking/jogging trials at gait velocities ranging from 0.1 to 4.8m/s, while FitBits (ankle and waist), and a Nike Fuelband (wrist) demonstrated agreements of 92% (36%), 93% (22%), and 33% (35%), respectively. The algorithm results demonstrated high median (IQR) step detection sensitivity (95% (2%)), positive predictive value (PPV) (99% (1%)), and agreement (97% (3%)) during a laboratory-based simulated free-living protocol. The algorithm also showed high median (IQR) sensitivity, PPV, and agreement identifying walking steps (91% (5%), 98% (4%), and 96% (5%)), jogging steps (97% (6%), 100% (1%), and 95% (6%)), and less than 3% mean error in cadence calculations.

Validity of using tri-axial accelerometers to measure human movement - Part I: Posture and movement detection.

A robust method for identifying movement in the free-living environment is needed to objectively measure physical activity. The purpose of this study was to validate the identification of postural orientation and movement from acceleration data against visual inspection from video recordings. Using tri-axial accelerometers placed on the waist and thigh, static orientations of standing, sitting, and lying down, as well as dynamic movements of walking, jogging and transitions between postures were identified. Additionally, subjects walked and jogged at self-selected slow, comfortable, and fast speeds. Identification of tasks was performed using a combination of the signal magnitude area, continuous wavelet transforms and accelerometer orientations. Twelve healthy adults were studied in the laboratory, with two investigators identifying tasks during each second of video observation. The intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-rater reliability were greater than 0.95 for all activities except for transitions. Results demonstrated high validity, with sensitivity and positive predictive values of greater than 85% for sitting and lying, with walking and jogging identified at greater than 90%. The greatest disagreement in identification accuracy between the algorithm and video occurred when subjects were asked to fidget while standing or sitting. During variable speed tasks, gait was correctly identified for speeds between 0.1m/s and 4.8m/s. This study included a range of walking speeds and natural movements such as fidgeting during static postures, demonstrating that accelerometer data can be used to identify orientation and movement among the general population.

Posture and Movement Classification: The Comparison of Tri-Axial Accelerometer Numbers and Anatomical Placement

Patient compliance is important when assessing movement, particularly in a free-living environment when patients are asked to don their own accelerometers. Reducing the number of accelerometers could increase patient compliance. The aims of this study were (1) to determine and compare the validity of different accelerometer combinations and placements for a previously developed posture and dynamic movement identification algorithm. Custom-built activity monitors, each containing one tri-axial accelerometer, were placed on the ankles, right thigh, and waist of 12 healthy adults. Subjects performed a protocol in the laboratory including static orientations of standing, sitting, and lying down, and dynamic movements of walking, jogging, transitions between postures, and fidgeting to simulate free-living activity. When only one accelerometer was used, the thigh was found to be the optimal placement to identify both movement and static postures, with a misclassification error of 10%, and demonstrated the greatest accuracy for walking/fidgeting and jogging classification with sensitivities and positive predictive value (PPVs) greater than 93%. When two accelerometers were used, the waist-thigh accelerometers identified movement and static postures with greater accuracy than the thigh-ankle accelerometers (with a misclassification error of 11% compared to 17%). However, the thigh-ankle accelerometers demonstrated the greatest accuracy for walking/ fidgeting and jogging classification with sensitivities and PPVs greater than 93%. Movement can be accurately classified in healthy adults using tri-axial accelerometers placed on one or two of the following sites: waist, thigh, or ankle. Posture and transitions require an accelerometer placed on the waist and an accelerometer placed on the thigh.

Step detection using multi- versus single tri-axial accelerometer-based systems.

Multiple sensors are often considered necessary for increased step count accuracy. However, subject adherence to device-wear increases using a minimal number of activity monitors (AMs). The study aims were to determine and compare the validity of using multiple AMs versus a single AM to detect steps by comparison to video using a modification of an algorithm previously developed for a four-accelerometer AM system capable, unlike other algorithms, of accurate step detection for gait velocities as low as 0.1 m s(-1). Twelve healthy adults wore ankle, thigh and waist AMs while performing walking/jogging trials at gait velocities from 0.1-4.8 m s(-1) and a simulated free-living dynamic activities protocol. Nineteen older adults wore ankle and waist AMs while walking at velocities from 0.5-2.0 m s(-1). As little as one AM (thigh or waist) accurately detected steps for velocities  >0.5 m s(-1). A single ankle AM accurately detected steps for velocities  ⩾0.1 m s(-1). Only the thigh AM could not accurately detect steps during the dynamic activities. Only the thigh-ankle combination or single waist AM could accurately distinguish between walking and jogging steps. These laboratory-based results suggest that the presented algorithm can accurately detect steps in a free-living environment using only one ankle or waist AM.

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.

Assessment of gait kinetics using triaxial accelerometers

Repeated durations of dynamic activity with high ground reaction forces (GRFs) and loading rates (LRs) can be beneficial to bone health. To fully characterize dynamic activity in relation to bone health, field-based measurements of gait kinetics are desirable to assess free-living lower-extremity loading. The study aims were to determine correlations of peak vertical GRF and peak vertical LR with ankle peak vertical accelerations, and of peak resultant GRF and peak resultant LR with ankle peak resultant accelerations, and to compare them to correlations with tibia, thigh, and waist accelerations. GRF data were collected as ten healthy subjects (26 [19-34] years) performed 8-10 walking trials at velocities ranging from 0.19 to 3.05 m/s while wearing ankle, tibia, thigh, and waist accelerometers. While peak vertical accelerations of all locations were positively correlated with peak vertical GRF and LR (r² > .53, P < .001), ankle peak vertical accelerations were the most correlated (r² > .75, P < .001). All peak resultant accelerations were positively correlated with peak resultant GRF and LR (r² > .57, P < .001), with waist peak resultant acceleration being the most correlated (r² > .70, P < .001). The results suggest that ankle or waist accelerometers give the most accurate peak GRF and LR estimates and could be useful tools in relating physical activity to bone health.

Accelerations of the waist and lower extremities over a range of gait velocities to aid in activity monitor selection for field-based studies.

This study aimed to define accelerations measured at the waist and lower extremities over a range of gait velocities to provide reference data for choosing the appropriate accelerometer for field-based human activity monitoring studies. Accelerations were measured with a custom activity monitor (± 16g) at the waist, thighs, and ankles in 11 participants over a range of gait velocities from slow walking to running speeds. The cumulative frequencies and peak accelerations were determined. Cumulative acceleration amplitudes for the waist, thighs, and ankles during gait velocities up to 4.8 m/s were within the standard commercial g-range (± 6g) in 99.8%, 99.0%, and 96.5% of the data, respectively. Conversely, peak acceleration amplitudes exceeding the limits of many commercially available activity monitors were observed at the waist, thighs, and ankles, with the highest peaks at the ankles, as expected. At the thighs, and more so at the ankles, nearly 50% of the peak accelerations would not be detected when the gait velocity exceeds a walking velocity. Activity monitor choice is application specific, and investigators should be aware that when measuring high-intensity gait velocity activities with commercial units that impose a ceiling at ± 6g, peak accelerations may not be measured.

Dynamic assessment of center of pressure measurements from an instrumented AMTI treadmill with controlled precision

With the increasing use of instrumented force treadmills in biomechanical research, it is imperative that the validity of center of pressure (COP) measurements is established. The study aims were to compare an instrumented treadmills static-belt COP accuracy to that of a floor-embedded platform, develop a novel method to quantify dynamic-belt COP accuracy with controlled precision and perform an initial investigation of how dynamic COP accuracy changes with weight and velocity. Static COP accuracy was assessed by applying a force while moving a rigid rod in a circular clockwise motion at nine positions of interest on the two treadmill and two ground-embedded force plates. Dynamic COP accuracy was assessed for weights (68.0, 102.1, and 136.1kg), applied through a ball bearing of 2.54cm circumference, with peak treadmill belt speeds of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0m/s. COP accuracy was assessed relative to motion capture marker trajectories. Statically, treadmill COP error was similar to that of the ground-embedded force plates and that reported for other treadmills. Dynamically, COP error appeared to vary systematically with weight and velocity and in the case of anteroposterior COP error, shear force, although testing with a larger number of weights and velocities is needed to fully define the relationship. This novel method can be used to assess any instrumented treadmills dynamic COP accuracy with controlled precision.

Validation of static and dynamic activity detection using a tri-axial accelerometer and video

Recording body accelerations has been investigated previously to monitor health, metabolic energy expenditure, postural sway and falls [1]. Activity monitoring and the subsequent analysis of the accelerometry data have also proven useful in detecting physical activity levels among Parkinson’s [2] and osteoarthritis patients [3].Copyright

Step Count Validation of a Tri-Axial Accelerometer During Walking and Jogging

Gait analysis is an important tool in assessing the health and activity levels of patients and regular physical activity has been associated with health improvements in a number of populations. Step counting is one of the most commonly used measures of physical activity [1] and many studies have investigated the use of wearable sensors for step counts [2–4]. Their small size and light weight mean that they may be used in a free living environment and are suitable for home deployment. One of the main issues associated with step counts as a measure of physical activity is that a very high level of accuracy in step detection is needed.Copyright