PTOtherJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Foot progression angle estimation using a single foot-worn inertial sensor.

Frank J Wouda, Stephan L J O Jaspar, Jaap Harlaar and 2 others

PMID 33596942

WHAT IT FOUND

A foot-worn sensor estimated foot progression angle in healthy adults, matching optical motion capture closely and separating normal, toe-in and toe-out gait.

It was not tested in knee osteoarthritis patients or as a treatment.

Key findings

01The sensor's step-by-step foot-angle estimates tracked the optical reference well for all three walking patterns.

02After accounting for each participant's 0-degree calibration offset, the mean difference between sensor and optical estimates was less than 2.5 degrees for all walking patterns.

03Both the sensor method and the optical reference could distinguish normal, toe-in, and toe-out walking.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only five healthy volunteers were tested, all male, so the results do not show accuracy in knee osteoarthritis patients or people with movement disorders. The walking angles were self-selected, so the study did not test fixed toe-in or toe-out targets. The algorithm was run off-line in MATLAB, not in a real-time wearable feedback device. Only straight-line walking was tested; turns were not evaluated. Differences between methods were affected by the 0-degree calibration and possible marker misplacement, and some participants had differences up to 5 degrees. The zero-velocity detection conditions and 0-degree calibration may be harder to use in patients with impaired gait.

Declared interests

Funding was provided by Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that this sensor improves knee osteoarthritis gait or reduces knee loading. It was tested only in five healthy adults, the algorithm was run off-line, and it did not test patients or real-time feedback.

Read it on PubMed →