Good agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during a 6-min walk

F. Proessl, C. W. Swanson, T. Rudroff, Brett Fling, B. L. Tracy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Traditional laboratory-based kinetic and kinematic gait analyses are expensive, time-intensive, and impractical for clinical settings. Inertial sensors have gained popularity in gait analysis research and more recently smart devices have been employed to provide quantification of gait. However, no study to date has investigated the agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during prolonged walking. Research question: Compare spatiotemporal gait metrics measured with a smart device versus previously validated inertial sensors. Methods: Twenty neurologically healthy young adults (7 women; age: 25.0 ± 3.7 years; BMI: 23.4 ± 2.9 kg/m2) performed a 6-min walk test (6MWT) wearing inertial sensors and smart devices to record stride duration, stride length, cadence, and gait speed. Pearson correlations were used to assess associations between spatiotemporal measures from the two devices and agreement between the two methods was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement. Results: All spatiotemporal gait metrics (stride duration, cadence, stride length and gait speed) showed strong (r>0.9) associations and good agreement between the two devices. Significance: Smart devices are capable of accurately reflecting many of the spatiotemporal gait metrics of inertial sensors. As the smart devices also accurately reflected individual leg output, future studies may apply this analytical strategy to clinical populations, to identify hallmarks of disability status and disease progression in a more ecologically valid environment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)63-67
Number of pages5
JournalGait and Posture
Volume64
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Gait
Equipment and Supplies
Research
Biomechanical Phenomena
Walking
Disease Progression
Young Adult
Leg
Population

Keywords

  • Gait analysis
  • Inertial sensors
  • Smart device
  • Validity
  • Walking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Good agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during a 6-min walk. / Proessl, F.; Swanson, C. W.; Rudroff, T.; Fling, Brett; Tracy, B. L.

In: Gait and Posture, Vol. 64, 01.07.2018, p. 63-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Proessl, F. ; Swanson, C. W. ; Rudroff, T. ; Fling, Brett ; Tracy, B. L. / Good agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during a 6-min walk. In: Gait and Posture. 2018 ; Vol. 64. pp. 63-67.
@article{9d70c3925702464181180ffb6f9ed061,
title = "Good agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during a 6-min walk",
abstract = "Background: Traditional laboratory-based kinetic and kinematic gait analyses are expensive, time-intensive, and impractical for clinical settings. Inertial sensors have gained popularity in gait analysis research and more recently smart devices have been employed to provide quantification of gait. However, no study to date has investigated the agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during prolonged walking. Research question: Compare spatiotemporal gait metrics measured with a smart device versus previously validated inertial sensors. Methods: Twenty neurologically healthy young adults (7 women; age: 25.0 ± 3.7 years; BMI: 23.4 ± 2.9 kg/m2) performed a 6-min walk test (6MWT) wearing inertial sensors and smart devices to record stride duration, stride length, cadence, and gait speed. Pearson correlations were used to assess associations between spatiotemporal measures from the two devices and agreement between the two methods was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement. Results: All spatiotemporal gait metrics (stride duration, cadence, stride length and gait speed) showed strong (r>0.9) associations and good agreement between the two devices. Significance: Smart devices are capable of accurately reflecting many of the spatiotemporal gait metrics of inertial sensors. As the smart devices also accurately reflected individual leg output, future studies may apply this analytical strategy to clinical populations, to identify hallmarks of disability status and disease progression in a more ecologically valid environment.",
keywords = "Gait analysis, Inertial sensors, Smart device, Validity, Walking",
author = "F. Proessl and Swanson, {C. W.} and T. Rudroff and Brett Fling and Tracy, {B. L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.030",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "63--67",
journal = "Gait and Posture",
issn = "0966-6362",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Good agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during a 6-min walk

AU - Proessl, F.

AU - Swanson, C. W.

AU - Rudroff, T.

AU - Fling, Brett

AU - Tracy, B. L.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Background: Traditional laboratory-based kinetic and kinematic gait analyses are expensive, time-intensive, and impractical for clinical settings. Inertial sensors have gained popularity in gait analysis research and more recently smart devices have been employed to provide quantification of gait. However, no study to date has investigated the agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during prolonged walking. Research question: Compare spatiotemporal gait metrics measured with a smart device versus previously validated inertial sensors. Methods: Twenty neurologically healthy young adults (7 women; age: 25.0 ± 3.7 years; BMI: 23.4 ± 2.9 kg/m2) performed a 6-min walk test (6MWT) wearing inertial sensors and smart devices to record stride duration, stride length, cadence, and gait speed. Pearson correlations were used to assess associations between spatiotemporal measures from the two devices and agreement between the two methods was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement. Results: All spatiotemporal gait metrics (stride duration, cadence, stride length and gait speed) showed strong (r>0.9) associations and good agreement between the two devices. Significance: Smart devices are capable of accurately reflecting many of the spatiotemporal gait metrics of inertial sensors. As the smart devices also accurately reflected individual leg output, future studies may apply this analytical strategy to clinical populations, to identify hallmarks of disability status and disease progression in a more ecologically valid environment.

AB - Background: Traditional laboratory-based kinetic and kinematic gait analyses are expensive, time-intensive, and impractical for clinical settings. Inertial sensors have gained popularity in gait analysis research and more recently smart devices have been employed to provide quantification of gait. However, no study to date has investigated the agreement between smart device and inertial sensor-based gait parameters during prolonged walking. Research question: Compare spatiotemporal gait metrics measured with a smart device versus previously validated inertial sensors. Methods: Twenty neurologically healthy young adults (7 women; age: 25.0 ± 3.7 years; BMI: 23.4 ± 2.9 kg/m2) performed a 6-min walk test (6MWT) wearing inertial sensors and smart devices to record stride duration, stride length, cadence, and gait speed. Pearson correlations were used to assess associations between spatiotemporal measures from the two devices and agreement between the two methods was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement. Results: All spatiotemporal gait metrics (stride duration, cadence, stride length and gait speed) showed strong (r>0.9) associations and good agreement between the two devices. Significance: Smart devices are capable of accurately reflecting many of the spatiotemporal gait metrics of inertial sensors. As the smart devices also accurately reflected individual leg output, future studies may apply this analytical strategy to clinical populations, to identify hallmarks of disability status and disease progression in a more ecologically valid environment.

KW - Gait analysis

KW - Inertial sensors

KW - Smart device

KW - Validity

KW - Walking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047740809&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047740809&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.030

DO - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.030

M3 - Article

C2 - 29859414

AN - SCOPUS:85047740809

VL - 64

SP - 63

EP - 67

JO - Gait and Posture

JF - Gait and Posture

SN - 0966-6362

ER -