Beyond gait speed: exploring the added value of Inertial Measurement Unit-based measurements of gait in the estimation of the walking ability in daily life.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gait speed is often used to estimate the walking ability in daily life in people after stroke. While measuring gait with inertial measurement units (IMUs) during clinical assessment yields additional information, it remains unclear if this information can improve the estimation of the walking ability in daily life beyond gait speed. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the additive value of IMU-based gait features over a simple gait-speed measurement in the estimation of walking ability in people after stroke. METHODS: Longitudinal data during clinical stroke rehabilitation were collected. The assessment consisted of two parts and was administered every three weeks. In the first part, participants walked for two minutes (2MWT) on a fourteen-meter path with three IMUs attached to low back and feet, from which multiple gait features, including gait speed, were calculated. The dimensionality of the corresponding gait features was reduced with a principal component analysis. In the second part, gait was measured for two consecutive days using one ankle-mounted IMU. Next, three measures of walking ability in daily life were calculated, including the number of steps per day, and the average and maximal gait speed. A gait-speed-only Linear Mixed Model was used to estimate the association between gait speed and each of the three measures of walking ability. Next, the principal components (PC), derived from the 2MWT, were added to the gait-speed-only model to evaluate if they were confounders or effect modifiers. RESULTS: Eighty-one participants were measured during rehabilitation, resulting in 198 2MWTs and 135 corresponding walking-performance measurements. 106 Gait features were reduced to nine PCs with 85.1% explained variance. The linear mixed models demonstrated that gait speed was weakly associated with the average and maximum gait speed in daily life and moderately associated with the number of steps per day. The PCs did not considerably improve the outcomes in comparison to the gait speed only models. CONCLUSIONS: Gait in people after stroke assessed in a clinical setting with IMUs differs from their walking ability in daily life. More research is needed to determine whether these discrepancies also occur in non-laboratory settings, and to identify additional non-gait factors that influence walking ability in daily life.