Scheduled System Maintenance on May 29th, 2015:
IEEE Xplore will be upgraded between 11:00 AM and 10:00 PM EDT. During this time there may be intermittent impact on performance. We apologize for any inconvenience.
By Topic

Use of Inertial Sensors for Ambulatory Assessment of Center-of-Mass Displacements During Walking

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

5 Author(s)

Current methods for center-of-mass (CoM) estimation are restricted to gait laboratories. The aim of this study was to estimate CoM displacement under ambulatory conditions with inertial sensors. A sacral inertial sensor (SIS method) was used to estimate the CoM displacement by double integration of the acceleration. Overestimation of the displacement caused by pelvic rotations was compensated (CSIS method). The CoM displacement estimations using the (C)SIS method were compared to the conventional methods of the segmental analysis (SA) method and the sacral marker (SM) method by the intraclass correlations and the root-mean-square (RMS) differences between the CoM curves. Accurate ambulatory measurement of the CoM displacement using inertial sensors was possible. Estimations of the sacrum position using the SIS method and the SM method were similar with mean (SD) RMS differences of 3.23 (0.87), 2.96 (0.42), and 3.22 (0.78) mm for, respectively, the x-, y- and z-directions. The CoM estimation of the SIS method has RMS differences of 5.67 (1.20), 7.16 (3.28), and 3.49 (1.29) mm compared the SA method. The CSIS method shows a clear improvement in these estimations of the CoM with RMS differences of 5.52 (1.29), 4.44 (1.89), and 3.17 (1.41) mm and is generally applicable for healthy subjects.

Published in:

Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:59 ,  Issue: 7 )