Lugade, Vipul

This study aimed to define accelerations measured at the waist and lower extremities over a range of gait velocities to provide reference data for choosing the appropriate accelerometer for field-based human activity monitoring studies. Accelerations were measured with a custom activity monitor (± 16g) at the waist, thighs, and ankles in 11 participants over a range of gait velocities from slow walking to running speeds. The cumulative frequencies and peak accelerations were determined. Cumulative acceleration amplitudes for the waist, thighs, and ankles during gait velocities up to 4.8 m/s were within the standard commercial g-range (± 6g) in 99.8%, 99.0%, and 96.5% of the data, respectively. Conversely, peak acceleration amplitudes exceeding the limits of many commercially available activity monitors were observed at the waist, thighs, and ankles, with the highest peaks at the ankles, as expected. At the thighs, and more so at the ankles, nearly 50% of the peak accelerations would not be detected when the gait velocity exceeds a walking velocity. Activity monitor choice is application specific, and investigators should be aware that when measuring high-intensity gait velocity activities with commercial units that impose a ceiling at ± 6g, peak accelerations may not be measured.

Gait analysis is useful for revealing pathologic tibial rotation in children with cerebral palsy (CP), thus guiding interventions of de-rotational osteotomy [1]. Surface marker misplacement may cause an inaccurate definition of the knee flexion axis, which generates downstream artifacts such as cross talk between knee rotation angles and internal rotation errors, misleading these patients’ assessments and surgical interventions [2,3]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a novel method for defining the true knee flexion axis from existing marker trajectories during gait. We hypothesized that the devised method would accurately quantify the offset in the flexion axis due to a systematically misplaced marker and correct the downstream crosstalk and rotation errors of the knee joint angles associated with the marker misplacement.

Patient compliance is important when assessing movement, particularly in a free-living environment when patients are asked to don their own accelerometers. Reducing the number of accelerometers could increase patient compliance. The aims of this study were (1) to determine and compare the validity of different accelerometer combinations and placements for a previously developed posture and dynamic movement identification algorithm. Custom-built activity monitors, each containing one tri-axial accelerometer, were placed on the ankles, right thigh, and waist of 12 healthy adults. Subjects performed a protocol in the laboratory including static orientations of standing, sitting, and lying down, and dynamic movements of walking, jogging, transitions between postures, and fidgeting to simulate free-living activity. When only one accelerometer was used, the thigh was found to be the optimal placement to identify both movement and static postures, with a misclassification error of 10%, and demonstrated the greatest accuracy for walking/fidgeting and jogging classification with sensitivities and positive predictive value (PPVs) greater than 93%. When two accelerometers were used, the waist-thigh accelerometers identified movement and static postures with greater accuracy than the thigh-ankle accelerometers (with a misclassification error of 11% compared to 17%). However, the thigh-ankle accelerometers demonstrated the greatest accuracy for walking/ fidgeting and jogging classification with sensitivities and PPVs greater than 93%. Movement can be accurately classified in healthy adults using tri-axial accelerometers placed on one or two of the following sites: waist, thigh, or ankle. Posture and transitions require an accelerometer placed on the waist and an accelerometer placed on the thigh.

Recording body accelerations has been investigated previously to monitor health, metabolic energy expenditure, postural sway and falls [1]. Activity monitoring and the subsequent analysis of the accelerometry data have also proven useful in detecting physical activity levels among Parkinson’s [2] and osteoarthritis patients [3].

Gait analysis is an important tool in assessing the health and activity levels of patients and regular physical activity has been associated with health improvements in a number of populations. Step counting is one of the most commonly used measures of physical activity [1] and many studies have investigated the use of wearable sensors for step counts [2–4]. Their small size and light weight mean that they may be used in a free living environment and are suitable for home deployment. One of the main issues associated with step counts as a measure of physical activity is that a very high level of accuracy in step detection is needed.