Where to mount the IMU? Validation of joint angle kinematics and sensor selection for activities of daily living

被引:1
|
作者
Uhlenberg, Lena [1 ,2 ]
Amft, Oliver [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Hahn Schickard, Freiburg, Germany
[2] Univ Freiburg, Intelligent Embedded Syst Lab, Freiburg, Germany
来源
关键词
framework validation; joint kinematics; multiscale modeling; sensor selection; wearable inertial sensors; ANATOMY; FILTER;
D O I
10.3389/fcomp.2024.1347424
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
We validate the OpenSense framework for IMU-based joint angle estimation and furthermore analyze the framework's ability for sensor selection and optimal positioning during activities of daily living (ADL). Personalized musculoskeletal models were created from anthropometric data of 19 participants. Quaternion coordinates were derived from measured IMU data and served as input to the simulation framework. Six ADLs, involving upper and lower limbs were measured and a total of 26 angles analyzed. We compared the joint kinematics of IMU-based simulations with those of optical marker-based simulations for most important angles per ADL. Additionally, we analyze the influence of sensor count on estimation performance and deviations between joint angles, and derive the best sensor combinations. We report differences in functional range of motion (fRoMD) estimation performance. Results for IMU-based simulations showed MAD, RMSE, and fRoMD of 4.8 degrees, 6.6 degrees, 7.2 degrees for lower limbs and for lower limbs and 9.2 degrees, 11.4 degrees, 13.8 degrees for upper limbs depending on the ADL. Overall, sagittal plane movements (flexion/extension) showed lower median MAD, RMSE, and fRoMD compared to transversal and frontal plane movements (rotations, adduction/abduction). Analysis of sensor selection showed that after three sensors for the lower limbs and four sensors for the complex shoulder joint, the estimation error decreased only marginally. Global optimum (lowest RMSE) was obtained for five to eight sensors depending on the joint angle across all ADLs. The sensor combinations with the minimum count were a subset of the most frequent sensor combinations within a narrowed search space of the 5% lowest error range across all ADLs and participants. Smallest errors were on average < 2 degrees over all joint angles. Our results showed that the open-source OpenSense framework not only serves as a valid tool for realistic representation of joint kinematics and fRoM, but also yields valid results for IMU sensor selection for a comprehensive set of ADLs involving upper and lower limbs. The results can help researchers to determine appropriate sensor positions and sensor configurations without the need for detailed biomechanical knowledge.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Electromyography and kinematics data of the hand in activities of daily living with special interest for ergonomics
    Alba Roda-Sales
    Néstor J. Jarque-Bou
    Vicent Bayarri-Porcar
    Verónica Gracia-Ibáñez
    Joaquín L. Sancho-Bru
    Margarita Vergara
    Scientific Data, 10
  • [22] Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics of high range of motion activities of daily living
    Hemmerich, A
    Brown, H
    Smith, S
    Marthandam, SSK
    Wyss, UP
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2006, 24 (04) : 770 - 781
  • [23] A calibrated database of kinematics and EMG of the forearm and hand during activities of daily living
    Néstor J. Jarque-Bou
    Margarita Vergara
    Joaquín L. Sancho-Bru
    Verónica Gracia-Ibáñez
    Alba Roda-Sales
    Scientific Data, 6
  • [24] Motion sensor dyskinesia assessment during activities of daily living
    Pulliam, C. L.
    Burack, M. A.
    Giuffrida, J. P.
    Heldman, D. A.
    Mera, T. O.
    MOVEMENT DISORDERS, 2014, 29 : S190 - S190
  • [25] Motion Sensor Dyskinesia Assessment During Activities of Daily Living
    Pulliam, Christopher L.
    Burack, Michelle A.
    Heldman, Dustin A.
    Giuffrida, Joseph P.
    Mera, Thomas O.
    JOURNAL OF PARKINSONS DISEASE, 2014, 4 (04) : 609 - 615
  • [26] Assessment of the impact of sensor failure in the recognition of activities of daily living
    Hong, X.
    Nugent, C. D.
    Mulvenna, M. D.
    McClean, S. I.
    Scotney, B. W.
    Devlin, S.
    SMART HOMES AND HEALTH TELEMATICS, 2008, 5120 : 136 - +
  • [27] Performance-Based Assessment of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living: Validation of the Sydney Test of Activities of Daily Living in Memory Disorders (STAM)
    Reppermund, Simone
    Birch, Rachael C.
    Crawford, John D.
    Wesson, Jacqueline
    Draper, Brian
    Kochan, Nicole A.
    Trollor, Julian N.
    Luttenberger, Katharina
    Brodaty, Henry
    Sachdev, Perminder S.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, 2017, 18 (02) : 117 - 122
  • [28] A Novel Method to Assess Angle Sensor Performance for Wearable Exoskeletal Joint Kinematics
    Bolus, Nicholas B.
    Kogler, Geza F.
    Inan, Omer T.
    2016 38TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY (EMBC), 2016, : 3109 - 3112
  • [29] Impact of osteoarthritis on activities of daily living: does joint site matter?
    Michael A. Clynes
    Karen A. Jameson
    Mark H. Edwards
    Cyrus Cooper
    Elaine M. Dennison
    Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 2019, 31 : 1049 - 1056
  • [30] In vivo Measurement of shoulder joint loads during activities of daily living
    Westerhoff, P.
    Graichen, F.
    Halder, A.
    Bender, A.
    Dymke, J.
    Beier, A.
    Rohlmann, A.
    Bergmann, G.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2009, 14 : 79 - 79