Inertial Measures of Motion for Clinical Biomechanics: Comparative Assessment of Accuracy under Controlled Conditions – Changes in Accuracy over Time

Background Interest in 3D inertial motion tracking devices (AHRS) has been growing rapidly among the biomechanical community. Although the convenience of such tracking devices seems to open a whole new world of possibilities for evaluation in clinical biomechanics, its limitations haven’t been extensively documented. The objectives of this study are: 1) to assess the change in absolute and relative accuracy of multiple units of 3 commercially available AHRS over time; and 2) to identify different sources of errors affecting AHRS accuracy and to document how they may affect the measurements over time. Methods This study used an instrumented Gimbal table on which AHRS modules were carefully attached and put through a series of velocity-controlled sustained motions including 2 minutes motion trials (2MT) and 12 minutes multiple dynamic phases motion trials (12MDP). Absolute accuracy was assessed by comparison of the AHRS orientation measurements to those of an optical gold standard. Relative accuracy was evaluated using the variation in relative orientation between modules during the trials. Findings Both absolute and relative accuracy decreased over time during 2MT. 12MDP trials showed a significant decrease in accuracy over multiple phases, but accuracy could be enhanced significantly by resetting the reference point and/or compensating for initial Inertial frame estimation reference for each phase. Interpretation The variation in AHRS accuracy observed between the different systems and with time can be attributed in part to the dynamic estimation error, but also and foremost, to the ability of AHRS units to locate the same Inertial frame. Conclusions Mean accuracies obtained under the Gimbal table sustained conditions of motion suggest that AHRS are promising tools for clinical mobility assessment under constrained conditions of use. However, improvement in magnetic compensation and alignment between AHRS modules are desirable in order for AHRS to reach their full potential in capturing clinical outcomes.

[1]  Ruigang Yang,et al.  Accuracy and repeatability of joint angles measured using a single camera markerless motion capture system. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  John Darby,et al.  Gait and Posture , 2016 .

[3]  R. Burdett,et al.  Reliability and validity of four instruments for measuring lumbar spine and pelvic positions. , 1986, Physical therapy.

[4]  J. Katz,et al.  Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: how important is this as an outcome measure? , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  Patrick Boissy,et al.  Assessing the Validity of Attitude and Heading Reference Systems for Biomechanical Evaluation of Motions - A Methodological Proposal , 2014, BIODEVICES.

[6]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  A spot check for assessing static orientation consistency of inertial and magnetic sensing units. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[7]  A Brennan,et al.  Quantification of inertial sensor-based 3D joint angle measurement accuracy using an instrumented gimbal. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[8]  Patrick Boissy,et al.  Inertial Measures of Motion for Clinical Biomechanics: Comparative Assessment of Accuracy under Controlled Conditions - Effect of Velocity , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  Pagamas Piriyaprasarth,et al.  Psychometric properties of measurement tools for quantifying knee joint position and movement: a systematic review. , 2007, The Knee.

[10]  Ismaila Adamu Saidu,et al.  Lumbar spinal mobility changes among adults with advancing age , 2011, Journal of mid-life health.

[11]  K. Greene,et al.  Measuring flexion in knee arthroplasty patients. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  L. Rocchi,et al.  A simple test to assess the static and dynamic accuracy of an inertial sensors system for human movement analysis , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.