Validation of an inertial measurement unit for the quantification of rearfoot kinematics during running.

BACKGROUND The popular protocol used to study running motion suffers from problems that lead to a limited ability to generalize the obtained results. Inertial measurement units (IMU) appear to be promising in increasing ecological validity of the collected data. However, quantifying running kinematics utilizing IMU signals is complex and potentially affected by several well-established and less well-known errors. RESEARCH QUESTION The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of kinematic variables obtained from a single, shoe-mounted IMU using an opto-electronic motion analysis reference system. METHODS 51 recreational runners were analyzed, performing a single continuous run at three different speeds (10, 12, 15 km/h) on a treadmill. Descriptive statistics (Bland & Altman analysis, box plots, scatter plots) were employed to analyze the agreement between the two instruments. RESULTS The findings of this study revealed considerable systematic and large random disagreement, which, in turn, is characterized by substantial inter-individual differences in the error distribution. These discrepancies may partly be explained by differences in foot strike behavior, resulting in varying degrees of vibration impact acting on the IMU. SIGNIFICANCE Advances in IMU technology, as well as exploring new application approaches and signal processing strategies, might enhance the usability of IMUs in analyzing running kinematics.

[1]  Sungsu Park.  Adaptive Control of a Vibratory Angle Measuring Gyroscope , 2010, Sensors.

[2]  D. Altman,et al.  Agreement Between Methods of Measurement with Multiple Observations Per Individual , 2007, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[3]  D. Kerrigan,et al.  A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. , 2008, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[4]  A. Shkel.  Type I and Type II Micromachined Vibratory Gyroscopes , 2006, 2006 IEEE/ION Position, Location, And Navigation Symposium.

[5]  Thomas L. Milani,et al.  Methodological issues associated with the mean value of repeated laboratory running measurements , 2012 .

[6]  N. Peyrot,et al.  Running pattern changes depending on the level of subjects' awareness of the measurements performed: a "sampling effect" in human locomotion experiments? , 2009, Gait & posture.

[7]  Joseph Hamill,et al.  Comparing dynamical systems concepts and techniques for biomechanical analysis , 2016, Journal of sport and health science.

[8]  Nicolai Lees Mifsud,et al.  Portable inertial motion unit for continuous assessment of in-shoe foot movement , 2014 .

[9]  P. Burt.  Fast filter transform for image processing , 1981 .

[10]  Martyn R. Shorten,et al.  Spectral Analysis of Impact Shock during Running , 1992 .

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[12]  J.A. Geen.  Progress in integrated gyroscopes , 2004, PLANS 2004. Position Location and Navigation Symposium (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37556).

[13]  Peter H Veltink,et al.  Accelerometer and rate gyroscope measurement of kinematics: an inexpensive alternative to optical motion analysis systems. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  Peter H. Veltink,et al.  Measuring orientation of human body segments using miniature gyroscopes and accelerometers , 2005, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[15]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Measurement error , 1996 .

[17]  J Y Goulermas,et al.  Predicting lower limb joint kinematics using wearable motion sensors. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[18]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 2: instrumental errors. , 2004, Gait & posture.

[19]  Sang Won Yoon,et al.  Vibration-induced errors in MEMS tuning fork gyroscopes , 2012 .

[20]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of kinematic data. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  Lorenzo Chiari,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 4: assessment of anatomical landmark misplacement and its effects on joint kinematics. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[22]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[23]  B. Nigg,et al.  The effects of preferred and non-preferred running strike patterns on tissue vibration properties. , 2014, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[24]  D. De Clercq,et al.  Temporal characteristics of foot roll-over during barefoot jogging: reference data for young adults. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[25]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 1: theoretical background. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[26]  J. Hamill,et al.  Running injury and stride time variability over a prolonged run. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[27]  A. Cappozzo,et al.  Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[28]  Harvey Weinberg.  Gyro Mechanical Performance: The Most Important Parameter , 2011 .