2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A functional calibration protocol for ankle plantar-dorsiflexion estimate using magnetic and inertial measurement units: Repeatability and reliability assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such discrepancies are unlikely to affect the results of this study since differences between marker-based and MIMU-based events were in the range 14–21 ms. Second, the analysis of how an anticipated or delayed identification of FSs would influence the characterization of the heel and forefoot rocker must be interpreted with caution. In the current study, to set apart the errors entailed in estimating ankle kinematics with MIMUs [ 24 ] from those relative to gait event identification, ankle kinematics was estimated using an optoelectronic system. Therefore, the characterization of the heel and forefoot rocker may change when using MIMUs to estimate the ankle kinematics.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such discrepancies are unlikely to affect the results of this study since differences between marker-based and MIMU-based events were in the range 14–21 ms. Second, the analysis of how an anticipated or delayed identification of FSs would influence the characterization of the heel and forefoot rocker must be interpreted with caution. In the current study, to set apart the errors entailed in estimating ankle kinematics with MIMUs [ 24 ] from those relative to gait event identification, ankle kinematics was estimated using an optoelectronic system. Therefore, the characterization of the heel and forefoot rocker may change when using MIMUs to estimate the ankle kinematics.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(ii) The anatomical calibration procedure. The relevant accuracy and reliability, validated in healthy individuals [ 21 , 24 , 25 ], should be tested in this population, and the most accurate and reliable should be chosen;…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of them were extracted from , including the raw estimate of the height, . Nineteen jump-related variables (features from A to s) were inspired by Dowling and Vamos ( 5 ); three of them ( , , and ), enlarging the description of power related variables were presented in Mascia and Camomilla ( 22 ); finally, the last three features are the central frequencies obtained processing via VMD ( 45 ), subdividing the signal into three intrinsic mode functions, each having a frequency spectrum centered around each of them. In particular, the high- and mid-central frequencies ( and ) were assumed to be associated with the inertial effects due to wobbling masses, whereas the low-central frequency ( ) was thought to be associated with the jump itself ( Figure 4 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Smartphone IMUs have already been used to characterize jump activity: to detect it among other activities ( 18 ), to find possible correlations between jump mat variables and kinematic features in both CMJ and SJ ( 19 ), and to analyze drop jumps ( 20 , 21 ). Estimating jump height using SP-embedded IMU direct measures has not been attempted, to the best of our knowledge, aside from preliminary investigations forerunner of the current one ( 22 , 23 ). SP-focused studies were all based on video camera-based approaches ( 24 , 25 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Often, both approaches are combined, and one axis is derived from a static pose and one from a functional motion. Those hybrid approaches have been demonstrated for the upper body [27,28] and lower body [29][30][31]. For thorax and lumbar joint angles, however, a recent study by Cottam et al [32] found that calibration via functional motions did not improve accuracy in comparison to relying on manual sensor placement.…”
Section: Calibration From Arbitrary Motions (Model-based Alignment)mentioning
confidence: 99%