Wearable sensor validation of sports-related movements for the lower extremity and trunk
Wearable sensor validation of sports-related movements for the lower extremity and trunk
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.08.001
复制
发表时间：
2020-10-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Tashman, Scott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dahl, Kimi D.;Dunford, Kristin M.;Tashman, Scott
惯性测量单元（伊穆斯）是3D光学运动捕捉的替代方案，在评估与运动相关的运动方面越来越受欢迎。这项研究验证了IMU系统对“黄金标准”的光学运动捕捉系统在常见的体育运动。49名健康成年人进行了各种运动应用中常见的六种运动（切割，跑步，跳跃，单腿蹲下和交叉扭转），同时配备了标准的回射标记和无线IMU系统。计算偏倚、RMSE、精度和最大绝对误差（MAE），以比较两种系统在下肢关节和躯干的所有运动平面和所有活动中的情况。在矢状面、横断面和额状面，快活动和慢活动之间的MAE差异分别为11.62度、7.41度和5.82度。对于偏差，IMU系统倾向于在横向和额状平面中报告比光学运动捕获系统更大的角度，而在矢状平面中报告更小的角度。矢状面、横断面和额状面的平均组内相关系数分别为0.81 +/- 0.17、0.38 +/- 0.19和0.22 +/- 0.37。当计算所有三个平面上的全局偏差时，IMU系统向光学运动捕捉系统报告几乎相同的角度（< 3.5度差）。所有平面的全局精度为2-6.5度，全局RMSE为7-10.5度。然而，全球MAE为11-23度。总体而言，并提出了改进方法以进一步减少测量误差的建议，这些结果支持当前的应用，并表明需要继续验证和改进IMU系统。(C)2020由Elsevier Ltd代表IPEM发布。
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), an alternative to 3D optical motion capture, are growing in popularity to assess sports-related movements. This study validated an IMU system against a "gold-standard" optical motion capture system during common sports movements. Forty-nine healthy adults performed six movements common to a variety of sports applications (cutting, running, jumping, single leg squats, and cross-over twist) while simultaneously outfitted with standard, retroreflective markers and a wireless IMU system. Bias, RMSE, precision, and maximum absolute error (MAE) were calculated to compare the two systems at the lower extremity joints and the trunk in all planes of movement and for all activities. The MAE difference between fast and slow activities for the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes were 11.62 degrees, 7.41 degrees, and 5.82 degrees, respectively. For bias, the IMU system tended to report larger angles than the optical motion capture system in the transverse and frontal planes and smaller angles in the sagittal plane. Average intraclass correlation coefficients for the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes were 0.81 +/- 0.17, 0.38 +/- 0.19, and 0.22 +/- 0.37, respectively. When calculating a global bias across all three planes, the IMU system reported nearly identical angles (< 3.5 degrees difference) to the optical motion capture system. The global precision across all planes was 2-6.5 degrees, and the global RMSE was 7-10.5 degrees. However, the global MAE was 11-23 degrees. Overall, and with suggestions for methodological improvement to further reduce measurement errors, these results support current applications and also indicate the need for continued validation and improvement of IMU systems. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IPEM.