scholarly journals Comparison of Different Algorithms for Calculating Velocity and Stride Length in Running Using Inertial Measurement Units

Sensors ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 4194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Zrenner ◽  
Stefan Gradl ◽  
Ulf Jensen ◽  
Martin Ullrich ◽  
Bjoern Eskofier
Keyword(s):  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Stride Length ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Estimation Algorithm ◽  
Velocity Estimation ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Trajectory Estimation ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Foot Trajectory

Running has a positive impact on human health and is an accessible sport for most people. There is high demand for tracking running performance and progress for amateurs and professionals alike. The parameters velocity and distance are thereby of main interest. In this work, we evaluate the accuracy of four algorithms, which calculate the stride velocity and stride length during running using data of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) placed in the midsole of a running shoe. The four algorithms are based on stride time, foot acceleration, foot trajectory estimation, and deep learning, respectively. They are compared using two studies: a laboratory-based study comprising 2377 strides from 27 subjects with 3D motion tracking as a reference and a field study comprising 12 subjects performing a 3.2-km run in a real-world setup. The results show that the foot trajectory estimation algorithm performs best, achieving a mean error of 0.032 ± 0.274 m/s for the velocity estimation and 0.022 ± 0.157 m for the stride length. An interesting alternative for systems with a low energy budget is the acceleration-based approach. Our results support the implementation decision for running velocity and distance tracking using IMUs embedded in the sole of a running shoe.

scholarly journals Measuring Gait Velocity and Stride Length with an Ultrawide Bandwidth Local Positioning System and an Inertial Measurement Unit

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2896
Author(s):  
Pratham Singh ◽  
Michael Esposito ◽  
Zach Barrons ◽  
Christian A. Clermont ◽  
John Wannop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Gait Speed ◽  
Inertial Measurement Unit ◽  
Stride Length ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Gait Velocity ◽  
Positioning System ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Measurement Systems ◽  
Local Positioning System

One possible modality to profile gait speed and stride length includes using wearable technologies. Wearable technology using global positioning system (GPS) receivers may not be a feasible means to measure gait speed. An alternative may include a local positioning system (LPS). Considering that LPS wearables are not good at determining gait events such as heel strikes, applying sensor fusion with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) may be beneficial. Speed and stride length determined from an ultrawide bandwidth LPS equipped with an IMU were compared to video motion capture (i.e., the “gold standard”) as the criterion standard. Ninety participants performed trials at three self-selected walk, run and sprint speeds. After processing location, speed and acceleration data from the measurement systems, speed between the last five meters and stride length in the last stride of the trial were analyzed. Small biases and strong positive intraclass correlations (0.9–1.0) between the LPS and “the gold standard” were found. The significance of the study is that the LPS can be a valid method to determine speed and stride length. Variability of speed and stride length can be reduced when exploring data processing methods that can better extract speed and stride length measurements.

scholarly journals Analysis of the Accuracy of Ten Algorithms for Orientation Estimation Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensing Under Optimal Conditions: One Size Does Not Fit All

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 2543
Author(s):  
Marco Caruso ◽  
Angelo Maria Sabatini ◽  
Daniel Laidig ◽  
Thomas Seel ◽  
Marco Knaflitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inertial Measurement Unit ◽  
Motion Tracking ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Human Motion ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Optimal Conditions ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Rotation Rates ◽  
Significant Performance ◽  
Parameter Values

The orientation of a magneto and inertial measurement unit (MIMU) is estimated by means of sensor fusion algorithms (SFAs) thus enabling human motion tracking. However, despite several SFAs implementations proposed over the last decades, there is still a lack of consensus about the best performing SFAs and their accuracy. As suggested by recent literature, the filter parameters play a central role in determining the orientation errors. The aim of this work is to analyze the accuracy of ten SFAs while running under the best possible conditions (i.e., their parameter values are set using the orientation reference) in nine experimental scenarios including three rotation rates and three commercial products. The main finding is that parameter values must be specific for each SFA according to the experimental scenario to avoid errors comparable to those obtained when the default parameter values are used. Overall, when optimally tuned, no statistically significant differences are observed among the different SFAs in all tested experimental scenarios and the absolute errors are included between 3.8 deg and 7.1 deg. Increasing the rotation rate generally leads to a significant performance worsening. Errors are also influenced by the MIMU commercial model. SFA MATLAB implementations have been made available online.

scholarly journals Valid and Reliable Barbell Velocity Estimation Using an Inertial Measurement Unit

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (17) ◽  
pp. 9170
Author(s):  
Steffen Held ◽  
Ludwig Rappelt ◽  
Jan-Philip Deutsch ◽  
Lars Donath
Keyword(s):  
Inertial Measurement Unit ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Velocity Estimation ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Reliability Indicators

The accurate assessment of the mean concentric barbell velocity (MCV) and its displacement are crucial aspects of resistance training. Therefore, the validity and reliability indicators of an easy-to-use inertial measurement unit (VmaxPro®) were examined. Nineteen trained males (23.1 ± 3.2 years, 1.78 ± 0.08 m, 75.8 ± 9.8 kg; Squat 1-Repetition maximum (1RM): 114.8 ± 24.5 kg) performed squats and hip thrusts (3–5 sets, 30 repetitions total, 75% 1RM) on two separate days. The MCV and displacement were simultaneously measured using VmaxPro® and a linear position transducer (Speed4Lift®). Good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (0.91 < ICC < 0.96) with a small systematic bias (p < 0.001; ηp2 < 0.50) for squats (0.01 ± 0.04 m·s−1) and hip thrusts (0.01 ± 0.05 m·s−1) and a low limit of agreement (LoA < 0.12 m·s−1) indicated an acceptable validity. The within- and between-day reliability of the MCV revealed good ICCs (0.55 < ICC < 0.91) and a low LoA (<0.16 m·s−1). Although the displacement revealed a systematic bias during squats (p < 0.001; ηp2 < 0.10; 3.4 ± 3.4 cm), no bias was detectable during hip thrusts (p = 0.784; ηp2 < 0.001; 0.3 ± 3.3 cm). The displacement showed moderate to good ICCs (0.43 to 0.95) but a high LoA (7.8 to 10.7 cm) for the validity and (within- and between-day) reliability of squats and hip thrusts. The VmaxPro® is considered to be a valid and reliable tool for the MCV assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document