Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Uri Gottlieb

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 5. Absolute difference vs. walking speed.

Figure 5 Absolute difference vs. walking speed.

Related Figures (5)

Figure 1. (A) Delsys Avanti’s sensor with accelerometer and gyroscope axes (reprinted with permission from Trigno Wireless Biofeedback System User’s Guide, MAN-031-1-4, Delsys Inc.); (B) Heel and metatarsal Inertial Measurement Units position; (C) Reflective markers position. The red, green and blue lines represent the lab’s X, Y and Z coordinates, respectively. Figure 1. (A) Delsys Avanti’s sensor with accelerometer and gyroscope axes (reprinted with permission An eight-camera motion capture system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) sampling at 100 Hz was used to ob spine, grea first and fif third metatarsal base (Figure 1C). Data were exported tain 3D kinematic data. Twenty-six reflec Santa Ana, CA, USA) were attached to each side of the ter trochanter, lateral and medial femoral c tive markers (Pearl markers, B&L Engineering, participant’s anterior and posterior superior iliac ondyles, ankle medial and lateral malleoli, heel, h toes metatarsal heads, first and fifth toes metatarsal bases, and between the second and ON, Canad o Visual 3-D software (C-motion, Inc., Kingston, a) and processed through a 6 degree of freedom anthropometric model. The horizontal displacement of the foot with relations to the pelvis in the walking direction was computed as suggested by Zeni et al. [6].
Figure 1. (A) Delsys Avanti’s sensor with accelerometer and gyroscope axes (reprinted with permission from Trigno Wireless Biofeedback System User’s Guide, MAN-031-1-4, Delsys Inc.); (B) Heel and metatarsal Inertial Measurement Units position; (C) Reflective markers position. The red, green and blue lines represent the lab’s X, Y and Z coordinates, respectively. Figure 1. (A) Delsys Avanti’s sensor with accelerometer and gyroscope axes (reprinted with permission An eight-camera motion capture system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) sampling at 100 Hz was used to ob spine, grea first and fif third metatarsal base (Figure 1C). Data were exported tain 3D kinematic data. Twenty-six reflec Santa Ana, CA, USA) were attached to each side of the ter trochanter, lateral and medial femoral c tive markers (Pearl markers, B&L Engineering, participant’s anterior and posterior superior iliac ondyles, ankle medial and lateral malleoli, heel, h toes metatarsal heads, first and fifth toes metatarsal bases, and between the second and ON, Canad o Visual 3-D software (C-motion, Inc., Kingston, a) and processed through a 6 degree of freedom anthropometric model. The horizontal displacement of the foot with relations to the pelvis in the walking direction was computed as suggested by Zeni et al. [6].
Figure 2. Forward walking gait events identification based on: (a) kinematic data; (b) IMU data. Red squares indicate initial foot contact (heel strike); green circles indicate terminal foot contact (toes off). The horizontal displacement of the foot with relation to the pelvis in the walking direction was used for OMC-based identification of gait events, as suggested by Zeni et al. [6]. Relative maxima were identified as a heel strike (i.e., when the foot is at its most forward position with relation to the pelvis), and relative minima were identified as toe-off (i-e., when the foot is at the most backward position with relation to the pelvis) (Figure 2a).
Figure 2. Forward walking gait events identification based on: (a) kinematic data; (b) IMU data. Red squares indicate initial foot contact (heel strike); green circles indicate terminal foot contact (toes off). The horizontal displacement of the foot with relation to the pelvis in the walking direction was used for OMC-based identification of gait events, as suggested by Zeni et al. [6]. Relative maxima were identified as a heel strike (i.e., when the foot is at its most forward position with relation to the pelvis), and relative minima were identified as toe-off (i-e., when the foot is at the most backward position with relation to the pelvis) (Figure 2a).
SD: Standard Deviation; LoA: Limits of Agreement; ICC: Intra-Class Correlation; CI: Confidence Intervals. Walking speed and mean absolute difference are presented as mean + SD. * p < 0.001 between forward and backward conditions. Table 1. Measures of agreement between the kinematics- and IMU-based methods under forward and backward walking. Table 1. Measures of agreement between the kinematics- and IMU-based methods under forward and
SD: Standard Deviation; LoA: Limits of Agreement; ICC: Intra-Class Correlation; CI: Confidence Intervals. Walking speed and mean absolute difference are presented as mean + SD. * p < 0.001 between forward and backward conditions. Table 1. Measures of agreement between the kinematics- and IMU-based methods under forward and backward walking. Table 1. Measures of agreement between the kinematics- and IMU-based methods under forward and
Figure 3. Backward walking gait events identification based on: (a) kinematic data; (b) IMU data. Red squares indicate initial foot contact; green circles indicate terminal foot contact.
Figure 3. Backward walking gait events identification based on: (a) kinematic data; (b) IMU data. Red squares indicate initial foot contact; green circles indicate terminal foot contact.
Figure 4. Bland-Altman limits of agreement between kinematic and accelerometry events identifications. FW: Forward walking; BW: Backward walking.
Figure 4. Bland-Altman limits of agreement between kinematic and accelerometry events identifications. FW: Forward walking; BW: Backward walking.
Related topics:
Analytical ChemistryElectrical and Electronic Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved