Full-body kinematics and head stabilisation strategies during walking in patients with chronic unilateral and bilateral vestibulopathy.

Chronic imbalance is a frequent and limiting symptom of patients with chronic unilateral and bilateral vestibulopathy. A full-body kinematic analysis of the movement of patients with vestibulopathy would provide a better understanding of the impact of the pathology on dynamic tasks such as walking. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the global body movement during walking, its variability (assessed with the GaitSD), and the strategies to stabilise the head (assessed with the head Anchoring Index). The full-body motion capture data of 10 patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV), 10 patients with unilateral vestibulopathy (UV), and 10 healthy subjects (HS) walking at several speeds (slow, comfortable, and fast) were analysed in this prospective cohort study. We observed only a few significant differences between groups in parts of the gait cycle (shoulder abduction-adduction, pelvis rotation, and hip flexion-extension) during the analysis of kinematic curves. Only BV patients had significantly higher gait variability (GaitSD) for all three walking speeds. Head stabilisation strategies depended on the plan of motion and walking speed condition, but BV and UV patients tended to stabilise their head in relation to the trunk and HS tended to stabilise their head in space. These results suggest that GaitSD could be a relevant biomarker of chronic instability in BV and that the head Anchoring Index tends to confirm clinical observations of abnormal head-trunk dynamics in patients with vestibulopathy while walking.

Sensor-to-Bone Calibration with the Fusion of IMU and Bi-Plane X-rays.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) need sensor-to-segment calibration to measure human kinematics. Multiple methods exist, but, when assessing populations with locomotor function pathologies, multiple limitations arise, including holding postures (limited by joint pain and stiffness), performing specific tasks (limited by lack of selectivity) or hypothesis on limb alignment (limited by bone deformity and joint stiffness). We propose a sensor-to-bone calibration based on bi-plane X-rays and a specifically designed fusion box to measure IMU orientation with respect to underlying bones. Eight patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with bi-plane X-rays in their clinical pathway participated in the study. Patients underwent bi-plane X-rays with fusion box and skin markers followed by a gait analysis with IMUs and a marker-based method. The validity of the pelvis, thigh and hip kinematics measured with a conventional sensor-to-segment calibration and with the sensor-to-bone calibration were compared. Results showed (1) the feasibility of the fusion of bi-plane X-rays and IMUs in measuring the orientation of anatomical axes, and (2) higher validity of the sensor-to-bone calibration for the pelvic tilt and similar validity for other degrees of freedom. The main strength of this novel calibration is to remove conventional hypotheses on joint and segment orientations that are frequently violated in pathological populations.

Can the evaluation of marker placement confidence be used as an indicator of gait kinematic variability?

Introduction: Three-dimensional gait analysis is widely used for the clinical assessment of movement disorders. However, measurement error reduces the reliability of kinematic data and consequently assessment of gait deviations. The identification of high variability is associated with low reliability and those parameters should be ignored or excluded from gait data interpretation. Moreover, marker placement error has been demonstrated to be the biggest source of variability in gait analysis and may be affected by factors intrinsic to the evaluators such as the evaluator's expertise which could be appraised through his/her experience and confidence in marker placement. Objectives: In the present study, we hypothesized that confidence in marker placement is correlated with kinematic variability and could potentially be used as part of a score of reliability. Therefore, we have proposed a questionnaire to evaluate qualitatively the confidence of evaluators in lower-limb marker placement. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the presented questionnaire. The secondary objective was to test a possible relationship between marker placement confidence and kinematics variability. Methods: To do so, test-retest gait data were acquired from two different experimental protocols. One protocol included data from a cohort of 32 pathological and 24 asymptomatic subjects where gait analysis was repeated three times, involving two evaluators. A second protocol included data from a cohort of 8 asymptomatic adults with gait analysis repeated 12 times, per participant, and involving four evaluators with a wider range of experience. Results: Results demonstrated that the questionnaire proposed is valid and reliable to evaluate qualitatively the confidence of evaluators in placing markers. Indeed, confidence scores were correlated with the actual variability of marker placement and revealed the evaluator's experience and the subjects' characteristics. However, no correlation was observed between confidence scores and kinematic variability and the formulated hypothesis was not supported.

Evaluation of lower limb and pelvic marker placement precision among different evaluators and its impact on gait kinematics computed with the Conventional Gait Model.

BACKGROUND: Gait analysis relies on the accurate and precise identification of anatomical landmarks to provide reliable and reproducible data. More specifically, the precision of marker placement among repeated measurements is responsible for increased variability in the output gait data. RESEARCH QUESTION: The objective of this study was to quantify the precision of marker placement on the lower limbs by a test-retest procedure and to investigate its propagation to kinematic data. METHODS: The protocol was tested on a cohort of eight asymptomatic adults involving four evaluators, with different levels of experience. Each evaluator performed, three repeated marker placements for each participant. The standard deviation was used to calculate the precision of the marker placement, the precision of the orientation of the anatomical (segment) coordinate systems, and the precision of the lower limb kinematics. In addition, one-way ANOVA was used to compare the intra-evaluator marker placement precision and kinematic precisions among the different levels of the evaluator's experience. Finally, a Pearson correlation between marker placement precision and kinematic precision was analyzed. RESULTS: Results have shown a precision of skin markers within 10 mm and 12 mm for intra-evaluator and inter-evaluator, respectively. Analysis of kinematic data showed good to moderate reliability for all parameters apart from hip and knee rotation that demonstrated poor intra- and inter-evaluator precision. Inter-trial variability was observed reduced than intra- and inter-evaluator variability. Moreover, experience had a positive impact on kinematic reliability since evaluators with higher experience showed a statistically significant increase in precision for most kinematic parameters. However, no correlation was observed between marker placement precision and kinematic precision which indicates that an error in the placement of one specific marker can be compensated or enhanced, in a non-linear way, by an error in the placement of other markers.

A dataset of asymptomatic human gait and movements obtained from markers, IMUs, insoles and force plates.

Human motion capture and analysis could be made easier through the use of wearable devices such as inertial sensors and/or pressure insoles. However, many steps are still needed to reach the performance of optoelectronic systems to compute kinematic parameters. The proposed dataset has been established on 10 asymptomatic adults. Participants were asked to walk at different speeds on a 10-meters walkway in a laboratory and to perform different movements such as squats or knee flexion/extension tasks. Three-dimensional trajectories of 69 reflective markers placed according to a conventional full body markerset, acceleration and angular velocity signals of 8 inertial sensors, pressure signals of 2 insoles, 3D ground reaction forces and moments obtained from 3 force plates were simultaneously recorded. Eight calculated virtual markers related to joint centers were also added to the dataset. This dataset contains a total of 337 trials including static and dynamic tasks for each participant. Its purpose is to enable comparisons between various motion capture systems and stimulate the development of new methods for gait analysis.

Three-Dimensional Lower-Limb Kinematics from Accelerometers and Gyroscopes with Simple and Minimal Functional Calibration Tasks: Validation on Asymptomatic Participants.

The use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) to compute gait outputs, such as the 3D lower-limb kinematics is of huge potential, but no consensus on the procedures and algorithms exists. This study aimed at evaluating the validity of a 7-IMUs system against the optoelectronic system. Ten asymptomatic subjects were included. They wore IMUs on their feet, shanks, thighs and pelvis. The IMUs were embedded in clusters with reflective markers. Reference kinematics was computed from anatomical markers. Gait kinematics was obtained from accelerometer and gyroscope data after sensor orientation estimation and sensor-to-segment (S2S) calibration steps. The S2S calibration steps were also applied to the cluster data. IMU-based and cluster-based kinematics were compared to the reference through root mean square errors (RMSEs), centered RMSEs (after mean removal), correlation coefficients (CCs) and differences in amplitude. The mean RMSE and centered RMSE were, respectively, 7.5° and 4.0° for IMU-kinematics, and 7.9° and 3.8° for cluster-kinematics. Very good CCs were found in the sagittal plane for both IMUs and cluster-based kinematics at the hip, knee and ankle levels (CCs > 0.85). The overall mean amplitude difference was about 7°. These results reflected good accordance in our system with the reference, especially in the sagittal plane, but the presence of offsets requires caution for clinical use.