↓ Skip to main content

Instrumenting gait assessment using the Kinect in people living with stroke: reliability and association with balance tests

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
235 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.
Article details
Title
Instrumenting gait assessment using the Kinect in people living with stroke: reliability and association with balance tests
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0006-8
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Microsoft Kinect has been used previously to assess spatiotemporal aspects of gait; however the reliability of this system for the assessment of people following stroke has not been established. This study examined the reliability and additional information that the Kinect provides when instrumenting a gait assessment in people living with stroke. The spatiotemporal variables of step length, step length asymmetry, foot swing velocity, foot swing velocity asymmetry, peak and mean gait speed and the percentage difference between the peak and mean gait speed were assessed during gait trials in 30 outpatients more than three months post-stroke and able to stand unsupported. Additional clinical assessments of functional reach (FR), step test (ST), 10 m walk test (10MWT) and the timed up and go (TUG) were performed, along with force platform instrumented assessments of center of pressure path length velocity during double-legged standing balance with eyes closed (DLEC), weight bearing asymmetry (WBA) and dynamic medial-lateral weight-shifting ability (MLWS). These tests were performed on two separate occasions, seven days apart for reliability assessment. Separate adjusted multiple regressions models for predicting scores on the clinical and force platform assessments were created using 1) the easily assessed clinically-derived gait variables 10MWT time and total number of steps; and 2) the Kinect-derived variables which were found to be reliable (ICC > 0.75) and not strongly correlated (Spearman's ρ < 0.80) with each other (i.e. non-redundant). Kinect-derived variables were found to be highly reliable (all ICCs > 0.80), but many were redundant. The final regression model using Kinect-derived variables consisted of the asymmetry scores, mean gait velocity, affected limb foot swing velocity and the difference between peak and mean gait velocity. In comparison with the clinically-derived regression model, the Kinect-derived model accounted for >15% more variance on the MLWS, ST and FR tests and scored similarly on all other measures. In conclusion, instrumenting gait using the Kinect is reliable and provides insight into the dynamic balance capacity of people living with stroke. This system provides a minimally intrusive method of examining potentially important gait characteristics in people living with stroke.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 226 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 59 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 41 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 13%
Computer Science 23 10%
Neuroscience 11 5%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 76 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#8,526,652
of 32,980,655 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#415
of 1,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,882
of 406,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,980,655 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 406,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.