Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review
<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Gait analysis, traditionally performed with lab-based optical motion capture systems, offers high accuracy but is costly and impractical for real-world use. Wearable technologies, especially inertial measurement units (IMUs), enable portable and accessible a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/1/36 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841549271087710208 |
|---|---|
| author | Giuseppe Prisco Maria Agnese Pirozzi Antonella Santone Fabrizio Esposito Mario Cesarelli Francesco Amato Leandro Donisi |
| author_facet | Giuseppe Prisco Maria Agnese Pirozzi Antonella Santone Fabrizio Esposito Mario Cesarelli Francesco Amato Leandro Donisi |
| author_sort | Giuseppe Prisco |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background/Objectives</b>: Gait analysis, traditionally performed with lab-based optical motion capture systems, offers high accuracy but is costly and impractical for real-world use. Wearable technologies, especially inertial measurement units (IMUs), enable portable and accessible assessments outside the lab, though challenges with sensor placement, signal selection, and algorithm design can affect accuracy. This systematic review aims to bridge the benchmarking gap between IMU-based and traditional systems, validating the use of wearable inertial systems for gait analysis. <b>Methods</b>: This review examined English studies between 2012 and 2023, retrieved from the Scopus database, comparing wearable sensors to optical motion capture systems, focusing on IMU body placement, gait parameters, and validation metrics. Exclusion criteria for the search included conference papers, reviews, unavailable papers, studies without wearable inertial sensors for gait analysis, and those not involving agreement studies or optical motion capture systems. <b>Results</b>: From an initial pool of 479 articles, 32 were selected for full-text screening. Among them, the lower body resulted in the most common site for single IMU placement (in 22 studies), while the most frequently used multi-sensor configuration involved IMU positioning on the lower back, shanks, feet, and thighs (10 studies). Regarding gait parameters, 11 studies out of the 32 included studies focused on spatial-temporal parameters, 12 on joint kinematics, 2 on gait events, and the remainder on a combination of parameters. In terms of validation metrics, 24 studies employed correlation coefficients as the primary measure, while 7 studies used a combination of error metrics, correlation coefficients, and Bland–Altman analysis. Validation metrics revealed that IMUs exhibited good to moderate agreement with optical motion capture systems for kinematic measures. In contrast, spatiotemporal parameters demonstrated greater variability, with agreement ranging from moderate to poor. <b>Conclusions</b>: This review highlighted the transformative potential of wearable IMUs in advancing gait analysis beyond the constraints of traditional laboratory-based systems. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5f3f441ea02e4b969a836d18ce8220f8 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-5f3f441ea02e4b969a836d18ce8220f82025-01-10T13:16:31ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182024-12-011513610.3390/diagnostics15010036Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic ReviewGiuseppe Prisco0Maria Agnese Pirozzi1Antonella Santone2Fabrizio Esposito3Mario Cesarelli4Francesco Amato5Leandro Donisi6Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, ItalyDepartment of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, ItalyDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, ItalyDepartment of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, ItalyDepartment of Engineering, University of Sannio, 82100 Benevento, ItalyDepartment of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80125 Naples, ItalyDepartment of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Gait analysis, traditionally performed with lab-based optical motion capture systems, offers high accuracy but is costly and impractical for real-world use. Wearable technologies, especially inertial measurement units (IMUs), enable portable and accessible assessments outside the lab, though challenges with sensor placement, signal selection, and algorithm design can affect accuracy. This systematic review aims to bridge the benchmarking gap between IMU-based and traditional systems, validating the use of wearable inertial systems for gait analysis. <b>Methods</b>: This review examined English studies between 2012 and 2023, retrieved from the Scopus database, comparing wearable sensors to optical motion capture systems, focusing on IMU body placement, gait parameters, and validation metrics. Exclusion criteria for the search included conference papers, reviews, unavailable papers, studies without wearable inertial sensors for gait analysis, and those not involving agreement studies or optical motion capture systems. <b>Results</b>: From an initial pool of 479 articles, 32 were selected for full-text screening. Among them, the lower body resulted in the most common site for single IMU placement (in 22 studies), while the most frequently used multi-sensor configuration involved IMU positioning on the lower back, shanks, feet, and thighs (10 studies). Regarding gait parameters, 11 studies out of the 32 included studies focused on spatial-temporal parameters, 12 on joint kinematics, 2 on gait events, and the remainder on a combination of parameters. In terms of validation metrics, 24 studies employed correlation coefficients as the primary measure, while 7 studies used a combination of error metrics, correlation coefficients, and Bland–Altman analysis. Validation metrics revealed that IMUs exhibited good to moderate agreement with optical motion capture systems for kinematic measures. In contrast, spatiotemporal parameters demonstrated greater variability, with agreement ranging from moderate to poor. <b>Conclusions</b>: This review highlighted the transformative potential of wearable IMUs in advancing gait analysis beyond the constraints of traditional laboratory-based systems.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/1/36agreementbiomechanicsgait analysisinertial measurement unitswearable sensors |
| spellingShingle | Giuseppe Prisco Maria Agnese Pirozzi Antonella Santone Fabrizio Esposito Mario Cesarelli Francesco Amato Leandro Donisi Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review Diagnostics agreement biomechanics gait analysis inertial measurement units wearable sensors |
| title | Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review |
| title_full | Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review |
| title_fullStr | Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review |
| title_short | Validity of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review |
| title_sort | validity of wearable inertial sensors for gait analysis a systematic review |
| topic | agreement biomechanics gait analysis inertial measurement units wearable sensors |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/1/36 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT giuseppeprisco validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT mariaagnesepirozzi validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT antonellasantone validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT fabrizioesposito validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT mariocesarelli validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT francescoamato validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview AT leandrodonisi validityofwearableinertialsensorsforgaitanalysisasystematicreview |