Lumbopelvic postural differences in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A pilot study

Jamison, Matthew; Glover, Mark; Peterson, Keyan; DeGregorio, Michael W.; King, Kamryn; Danelson, Kerry A.; O’Gara, Tadhg

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.01.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from the current study showed similar but tighter limits of agreement (−1.65 • to 4.38 • ) prior to correction, and therefore it is possible that some of the range of these errors is due to sensor orientation, especially as no mention of orientation correction was made in these works. Furthermore, previous studies have reported changes in accelerometerderived pelvis ROM in idiopathic scoliosis [31] and knee ROM errors [32] of 4.5 • and 2.4 • , respectively [31,32]. As demonstrated in step 1, it is also possible that this magnitude of error relates to attachment orientation, especially with the known obliquity of the spine with scoliosis [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Assessing the Impact of Sensor Orientation on Accelerometer-Derived Angles: A Systematic Analysis and Proposed Error Reduction

McClintock,

Callaway,

Clark

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accelerometers have been widely used for motion analysis. The effect of initial sensor orientation (ISO) on the derived range of motion (ROM) is currently unexplored, limiting clarity in understanding error. This two-step study systematically explored the effect of ISO on the error of accelerometer-derived range of motion (ROM) and the effect of a proposed correction algorithm. Accelerometer data were used to compute peak and through-range ROM across a range of ISO and movement angular velocities up to 148° s−1 compared to an optoelectronic gold-standard. Step 1 demonstrated that error increased linearly with increasing ISO offsets and angular velocity. Average peak ROM RMSE at an ISO of 20° tilt and twist was 5.9° for sagittal motion, and for an ISO of 50° pitch and 20° twist, it was 7.5° for frontal plane ROM. Through-range RMSE demonstrated errors of 7–8° for similar ISOs. Predictive modeling estimated a 3.2° and 3.7° increase in peak and through-range sagittal plane error for every 10° increase in tilt and twist ISO. Step 2 demonstrated error reduction utilizing mathematical correction for ISO, resulting in <1° mean peak error and <1.2° mean through-range ROM error regardless of ISO. Accelerometers can be used to measure cardinal plane joint angles, but initial orientation is a source of error unless corrected.

show abstract