2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.02.029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy and repeatability of single-pose calibration of inertial measurement units for whole-body motion analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

8
69
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
8
69
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, the hip F/E offset can be mostly contributed to an offset between different approaches (MVN, PiG and OS) as it is of similar size as the RMSD and correlations are excellent (ρ > 0.98). MVN shows the largest offset compared to both PiG and OS, since this offset is observed consistently for all measured subjects, it is likely caused by the calibration procedure [8], [9]. Pelvic tilt can differ between subjects in the calibration pose while identical assumptions about that pose are still applied to each subject.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the other hand, the hip F/E offset can be mostly contributed to an offset between different approaches (MVN, PiG and OS) as it is of similar size as the RMSD and correlations are excellent (ρ > 0.98). MVN shows the largest offset compared to both PiG and OS, since this offset is observed consistently for all measured subjects, it is likely caused by the calibration procedure [8], [9]. Pelvic tilt can differ between subjects in the calibration pose while identical assumptions about that pose are still applied to each subject.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Both inertial-magnetic and optical motion capture accuracy can be influenced by different external factors, e.g. soft-tissue artifacts (STAs) [5], occlusions [6], sensor/marker placement [7], [8], calibration pose accuracy [8], [9] and/or magnetic disturbances [3], [10]. Most of those potential sources of errors can be solved by proper measurement preparation, e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different attempts have been made either correcting magnetic disturbances or omitting the use of magnetometers at all (Ligorio and Sabatini, 2016;Teufl et al, 2018). However, another major issue of the commonly used approach is the (mal-)alignment of the sensor axes to physiological meaningful segment and rotation axes that define the anatomical model (Picerno, 2017;Robert-Lachaine et al, 2017;Mundt et al, 2019d). Several approaches have been suggested to overcome this problem: calibration postures or movements (Favre et al, 2009;Ferrari et al, 2010;Palermo et al, 2014), anatomical calibrations (Picerno et al, 2008;Bisi et al, 2015), post-trial calibration procedures (Hamacher et al, 2014;Li and Zhang, 2014) and more recently machine learning approaches (Zimmermann et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, inertial sensor has been used to detect and evaluate human motion: whole body motion [12, 13], scapula calibration [14], lie-to-stand transfer [15], and gait analysis [1620]. The studies using inertial sensors measure movement time; calculate joint or inclination angles, walking speed, step or stride length, and segment position relative to other position; and detect gait event timings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%