IMU-based upper limb kinematics validation: sensor fusion optimisation, sensor-to-segment alignment, and joint angle accuracy.
Fabre, A.; Kerr, G.; Pivonka, P.; van den Hoorn, W.
Show abstract
Conventional clinical assessment of upper limb kinematics relies on goniometry or visual estimation, methods that provide limited information on multi-segment 3D kinematics and can have poor inter-rater reliability. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) represent a viable alternative; however, extracting anatomically meaningful joint angles from skin-mounted sensors remains challenging owing to sensor-to-segment misalignment, soft-tissue artefact, and suboptimal orientation estimation under dynamic conditions. This study developed and validated a multi-segment IMU-based framework for upper limb kinematic assessment, addressing three stages of the measurement pipeline: (i) sensor fusion gain optimisation as a function of task mean segment angular velocity; (ii) accuracy of an anatomical landmark registration-based alignment method; and (iii) comparative evaluation of landmark-based alignment against manual and neutral-pose alignment approaches. Twenty participants with typical shoulder function performed clinical and functional upper limb tasks, recorded simultaneously with an optoelectronic motion capture system and six IMUs tracking the thorax, clavicle, scapula, humerus, forearm, and hand. Orientation estimation used a gradient-descent complementary filter with velocity-dependent gain modulation. Sensor-to-segment alignment was achieved via manual, neutral-pose, and landmark registration methods. Mean sensor orientation errors ranged from 1.5 to 3 degrees across segments/tasks and increased with angular velocity. Landmark registration produced substantially lower joint angle errors than manual and neutral-pose alignment across all joints (root mean square error range: 3.7-7.8 degrees; manual: 8.3-24.2 degrees; neutral: 15.5-35.5 degrees). These results indicate that IMU-derived kinematic accuracy is context-dependent, varying with joint and movement type, suggesting that accuracy should be established for the specific movements and joints relevant to each clinical application.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Validity and sensitivity of an inertial measurement unit-driven biomechanical model of motor variability for gait 94%
- Development and validation of 2D-LiDAR-based gait analysis instrument and algorithm 94%
- Validity and reliability of Kinect v2 for quantifying upper body kinematics during seated reaching 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation, characterization, and utility of markerless motion capture in a large cohort of pediatric patients with complex gait patterns 95%
- Inter-session repeatability of markerless motion capture gait kinematics 94%
- Moving outside the lab: markerless motion capture accurately quantifies sagittal plane kinematics during the vertical jump 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- OpenSense: An open-source toolbox for Inertial-Measurement-Unit-based measurement of lower extremity kinematics over long durations 96%
- Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis 94%
- Design and Evaluation of a Bone-anchored, Neurally-controlled Knee Prosthesis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation of two-dimensional video-based inference of finger kinematics with pose estimation 95%
- Joint Angle Trajectories Are Robust to Segment Length Estimation Methods in Human Reaching 94%
- A comparative analysis of co-contraction indices using synthetic EMG data: Implications for selection and interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantifying mechanical loading and elastic strain energy of the human Achilles tendon during walking and running 94%
- The effect of wrist posture on extrinsic finger muscle activity during single joint movements 93%
- The Ramp protocol: Uncovering individual differences in walking to an auditory beat using TeensyStep 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.