Comparison Between Kinematic and Ground Reaction Force Techniques for Determining Gait Events During Treadmill Walking at Different Walking Speeds
Overview
Biophysics
Authors
Affiliations
This study involved a comparison of kinematics-based and ground reaction force (GRF)-based event detection methods. The objectives were (1) to assess the difference between the determination of gait events from GRF-based and kinematic/ultrasound-based techniques and (2) to determine the effects of gait speed on the agreement between the two techniques. At combined speeds, the average of the true difference was 2.6+/-2.8 ms for heel strike and -1.3+/-2.4 ms for toe-off identification. A positive value indicated that GRF-based identification occurred before kinematics-based identification. The average of the true difference was -3.9+/-3.5 ms for the duration of stance; thus, the duration of stance as determined by the kinematics-based technique was shorter than that determined by GFR-based detection. Strong correlations (range 0.948-0.974) were found at all (slow, moderate, and fast) gait speeds. Near unity of slope of the linear regression line (range 0.955-1.008) was identified for the duration of stance between the two methods. Our results suggest that the agreement between the two event detection methods depended on gait speed, but the differences were small. The data determined using kinematic/ultrasound-based and GRF-based methods were comparable in healthy participants.
The effect of toe-only rocker sole shoes on gait variability of the elderly.
Hemmati F, Karimi M, Hosseini S, Mardani M, Fadayevatan R Med Biol Eng Comput. 2022; 60(9):2493-2498.
PMID: 35723818 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-022-02605-0.
A comparison of two techniques for center of pressure measurements.
DeBerardinis J, Neilsen C, Lidstone D, Dufek J, Trabia M J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020; 7:2055668320921063.
PMID: 32670601 PMC: 7338728. DOI: 10.1177/2055668320921063.
Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables.
DeBerardinis J, Dufek J, Trabia M, Lidstone D J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2019; 5:2055668317752088.
PMID: 31191923 PMC: 6453056. DOI: 10.1177/2055668317752088.
Affordable gait analysis using augmented reality markers.
Nagymate G, Kiss R PLoS One. 2019; 14(2):e0212319.
PMID: 30763399 PMC: 6375625. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212319.
Chien J, Pradeep Ambati V, Huang C, Mukherjee M Exp Brain Res. 2017; 235(4):1185-1193.
PMID: 28188327 PMC: 5350026. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-4881-z.