Validation of a High Sampling Rate Inertial Measurement Unit for Acceleration During Running

Abstract

The musculo-skeletal response of athletes to various activities during training exercises has become a critical issue in order to optimize their performance and minimize injuries. However, dynamic and kinematic measures of an athlete’s activity are generally limited by constraints in data collection and technology. Thus, the choice of reliable and accurate sensors is crucial for gathering data in indoor and outdoor conditions. The aim of this study is to validate the use of the accelerometer of a high sampling rate (13440.277778emHz) Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) in the frame of running activities. To this end, two validation protocols are imposed: a classical one on a shaker, followed by another one during running, the IMU being attached to a test subject. For each protocol, the response of the IMU Accelerometer (IMUA) is compared to a calibrated industrial accelerometer, considered as the gold standard for dynamic and kinematic data collection. The repeatability, impact of signal frequency and amplitude (on shaker) as well as the influence of speed (while running) are investigated. Results reveal that the IMUA exhibits good repeatability. Coefficient of Variation CV is 1%()8.58±0.06m/normals2 on the shaker and 3%()26.65±0.69m/normals2 while running. However, the shaker test shows that the IMUA is affected by the signal frequency (error exceeds 10% beyond 800.277778emHz), an observation confirmed by the running test. Nevertheless, the IMUA provides a reliable measure in the range 0–100 Hz, i.e., the most relevant part in the energy spectrum over the range 0–150 Hz during running. In our view, these findings emphasize the validity of IMUs for the measurement of acceleration during running.

Contribution of Bamboo for Vibratory Comfort in Biomechanics of Cycling

“…The characteristics of the frames and peripheral devices are listed in Table 1. Four IMU (Inertial Mouvement Unit) HIKOB Fox (Villeurbanne, France) validated in the study of [30] were fixed in the bicycle. Two sensors were on the bottom of the fork and the stays, which were considered as inputs.…”

Change-Point Detection of Peak Tibial Acceleration in Overground Running Retraining

“…The breakout board (dimensions: 21 × 13 mm) was fitted in a shrink socket [12]. The total mass was less than 3 grams, making it lighter than commercially available sensors in a plastic housing that have been used for the registration of tibial acceleration during running [2][3][4]. A very lightweight accelerometer is beneficial because it is less susceptible to unwanted secondary oscillations due to inertia.…”

“…The accelerometer of interest had dynamically user-selectable full scales of ±6 g/±12 g/±24 g and was capable of measuring accelerations with output data rates from 0.5 Hz to 1 kHz [28]. Provot and colleagues [2] recommended a sampling rate of at least 400 Hz for tests involving the measurement of tibial acceleration during running activities. A sampling rate of 1000 Hz was selected because lower rates might have caused the actual value of the peak to be missed.…”

“…The peak tibial acceleration of the axial component can be defined as the maximum positive value of the signal during stance. The axial peak tibial acceleration is considered a surrogate measure for impact loading and can be registered by an accelerometer [1][2][3]. Peak tibial acceleration has been used as input to biofeedback systems [4,5].…”

Peer Review #2 of "Exploring wearable sensors as an alternative to marker-based motion capture in the pitching delivery (v0.1)"

“…IMU sensors have been validated in research for joint angle measurements in the lower body (Leardini et al, 2014), as well as in the upper body (Morrow et al, 2017). IMU sensors have been validated for biomechanical analysis in movement-based areas like gait analysis (Kavanagh and Menz, 2008), running kinematics (Provot et al, 2017), and swimming biomechanics (de Magalhaes et al, 2014). IMU sensors have started to gain popularity in measuring the kinematics of throwers, but validation of such sensors has been limited.…”