File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison between Accelerometer and Gyroscope in Predicting Level-Ground Running Kinematics by Treadmill Running Kinematics Using a Single Wearable Sensor

TitleComparison between Accelerometer and Gyroscope in Predicting Level-Ground Running Kinematics by Treadmill Running Kinematics Using a Single Wearable Sensor
Authors
Keywordsdeep learning
convolutional neural network
running
kinematics
wearable sensor
Issue Date2021
PublisherMolecular Diversity Preservation International. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.net/sensors
Citation
Sensors, 2021, v. 21 n. 14, p. article no. 4633 How to Cite?
AbstractWearable sensors facilitate running kinematics analysis of joint kinematics in real running environments. The use of a few sensors or, ideally, a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) is preferable for accurate gait analysis. This study aimed to use a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict level-ground running kinematics (measured by four IMUs on the lower extremities) by using treadmill running kinematics training data measured using a single IMU on the anteromedial side of the right tibia and to compare the performance of level-ground running kinematics predictions between raw accelerometer and gyroscope data. The CNN model performed regression for intraparticipant and interparticipant scenarios and predicted running kinematics. Ten recreational runners were recruited. Accelerometer and gyroscope data were collected. Intraparticipant and interparticipant R2 values of actual and predicted running kinematics ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 and from 0.7 to 0.92, respectively. Normalized root mean squared error values of actual and predicted running kinematics ranged from 3.6% to 10.8% and from 7.4% to 10.8% in intraparticipant and interparticipant tests, respectively. Kinematics predictions in the sagittal plane were found to be better for the knee joint than for the hip joint, and predictions using the gyroscope as the regressor were demonstrated to be significantly better than those using the accelerometer as the regressor.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/301165
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.4
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.786
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChow, DHK-
dc.contributor.authorTremblay, L-
dc.contributor.authorLam, CY-
dc.contributor.authorYeung, AWY-
dc.contributor.authorCheng, WHW-
dc.contributor.authorTse, PTW-
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-27T08:07:04Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-27T08:07:04Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationSensors, 2021, v. 21 n. 14, p. article no. 4633-
dc.identifier.issn1424-8220-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/301165-
dc.description.abstractWearable sensors facilitate running kinematics analysis of joint kinematics in real running environments. The use of a few sensors or, ideally, a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) is preferable for accurate gait analysis. This study aimed to use a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict level-ground running kinematics (measured by four IMUs on the lower extremities) by using treadmill running kinematics training data measured using a single IMU on the anteromedial side of the right tibia and to compare the performance of level-ground running kinematics predictions between raw accelerometer and gyroscope data. The CNN model performed regression for intraparticipant and interparticipant scenarios and predicted running kinematics. Ten recreational runners were recruited. Accelerometer and gyroscope data were collected. Intraparticipant and interparticipant R2 values of actual and predicted running kinematics ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 and from 0.7 to 0.92, respectively. Normalized root mean squared error values of actual and predicted running kinematics ranged from 3.6% to 10.8% and from 7.4% to 10.8% in intraparticipant and interparticipant tests, respectively. Kinematics predictions in the sagittal plane were found to be better for the knee joint than for the hip joint, and predictions using the gyroscope as the regressor were demonstrated to be significantly better than those using the accelerometer as the regressor.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMolecular Diversity Preservation International. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.net/sensors-
dc.relation.ispartofSensors-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectdeep learning-
dc.subjectconvolutional neural network-
dc.subjectrunning-
dc.subjectkinematics-
dc.subjectwearable sensor-
dc.titleComparison between Accelerometer and Gyroscope in Predicting Level-Ground Running Kinematics by Treadmill Running Kinematics Using a Single Wearable Sensor-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLam, CY: lamclive@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, CY=rp02771-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/s21144633-
dc.identifier.pmid34300372-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC8309515-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85109007395-
dc.identifier.hkuros323571-
dc.identifier.volume21-
dc.identifier.issue14-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 4633-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 4633-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000677061100001-
dc.publisher.placeSwitzerland-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats