↓ Skip to main content

Concurrent Validity of Accelerations Measured Using a Tri-Axial Inertial Measurement Unit while Walking on Firm, Compliant and Uneven Surfaces

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Concurrent Validity of Accelerations Measured Using a Tri-Axial Inertial Measurement Unit while Walking on Firm, Compliant and Uneven Surfaces
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0098395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael H. Cole, Wolbert van den Hoorn, Justin K. Kavanagh, Steven Morrison, Paul W. Hodges, James E. Smeathers, Graham K. Kerr

Abstract

Although accelerometers are extensively used for assessing gait, limited research has evaluated the concurrent validity of these devices on less predictable walking surfaces or the comparability of different methods used for gravitational acceleration compensation. This study evaluated the concurrent validity of trunk accelerations derived from a tri-axial inertial measurement unit while walking on firm, compliant and uneven surfaces and contrasted two methods used to remove gravitational accelerations; i) subtraction of the best linear fit from the data (detrending); and ii) use of orientation information (quaternions) from the inertial measurement unit. Twelve older and twelve younger adults walked at their preferred speed along firm, compliant and uneven walkways. Accelerations were evaluated for the thoracic spine (T12) using a tri-axial inertial measurement unit and an eleven-camera Vicon system. The findings demonstrated excellent agreement between accelerations derived from the inertial measurement unit and motion analysis system, including while walking on uneven surfaces that better approximate a real-world setting (all differences <0.16 m.s(-2)). Detrending produced slightly better agreement between the inertial measurement unit and Vicon system on firm surfaces (delta range: -0.05 to 0.06 vs. 0.00 to 0.14 m.s(-2)), whereas the quaternion method performed better when walking on compliant and uneven walkways (delta range: -0.16 to -0.02 vs. -0.07 to 0.07 m.s(-2)). The technique used to compensate for gravitational accelerations requires consideration in future research, particularly when walking on compliant and uneven surfaces. These findings demonstrate trunk accelerations can be accurately measured using a wireless inertial measurement unit and are appropriate for research that evaluates healthy populations in complex environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Austria 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Student > Master 22 20%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 27 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Sports and Recreations 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 26 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,230,558
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,315
of 194,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,967
of 226,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,874
of 4,515 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,515 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.