Smooth Moves: Comparing Log Dimensionless Jerk Metrics from Body Center of Mass Trajectory and Wearable Sensor Acceleration During Walking

Overview

Journal Sensors (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2025 Feb 26

PMID 40006462

Authors

Paolo Brasiliano

Gaspare Pavei

Elena Bergamini

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Movement smoothness is a critical metric for evaluating motor control and sensorimotor impairments, with increasing relevance in neurorehabilitation and everyday functional assessments. This study investigates the correlation between two smoothness metrics (Log Dimensionless Jerk): LDLJV, derived from body center of mass (BCoM) trajectories using a gold-standard stereophotogrammetric system, and LDLJA, calculated from acceleration data recorded via an inertial measurement unit (IMU) placed at the L1-L2 level. Ten healthy adults (six men and four women; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; body mass: 68.2 ± 10.2 kg; age: 34.5 ± 8.5 years) walked on a treadmill at seven different speeds, with stride-specific data analyzed to compute smoothness indices for three anatomical components (antero-posterior, medio-lateral, cranio-caudal). Concordance between the metrics was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, Spearman's correlation, and the mean absolute percentage error. The results revealed weak correlations and substantial biases across all components and speeds, reflecting inherent differences between IMU- and BCoM-derived data. Correcting biases improved alignment but did not eliminate discrepancies. The findings highlight that LDLJA captures only localized trunk accelerations, whereas BCoM-derived LDLJV approximates whole-body dynamics, making direct substitution infeasible. This study emphasizes the need for careful interpretation of IMU-based metrics and contributes to refining their application in real-world gait analyses.

References

Bergamini E, Cereatti A, Pavei G . Walking symmetry is speed and index dependent. Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):19548. PMC: 11341956. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-69461-w. View

Monte A, Tecchio P, Nardello F, Bachero-Mena B, Ardigo L, Zamparo P . The interplay between gastrocnemius medialis force-length and force-velocity potentials, cumulative EMG activity and energy cost at speeds above and below the walk to run transition speed. Exp Physiol. 2022; 108(1):90-102. PMC: 10103772. DOI: 10.1113/EP090657. View

Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

Mobbs R, Perring J, Raj S, Maharaj M, Yoong N, Sy L . Gait metrics analysis utilizing single-point inertial measurement units: a systematic review. Mhealth. 2022; 8:9. PMC: 8800203. DOI: 10.21037/mhealth-21-17. View

Pavei G, Salis F, Cereatti A, Bergamini E . Body center of mass trajectory and mechanical energy using inertial sensors: a feasible stride?. Gait Posture. 2020; 80:199-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.04.012. View

Flash T, Hogan N . The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci. 1985; 5(7):1688-703. PMC: 6565116. View

Krebs H, Hogan N, Aisen M, Volpe B . Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998; 6(1):75-87. PMC: 2692541. DOI: 10.1109/86.662623. View

Hogan N, Sternad D . Sensitivity of smoothness measures to movement duration, amplitude, and arrests. J Mot Behav. 2009; 41(6):529-34. PMC: 3470860. DOI: 10.3200/35-09-004-RC. View

OConnor C, Thorpe S, OMalley M, Vaughan C . Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture. 2006; 25(3):469-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.016. View

10.

Germanotta M, Iacovelli C, Aprile I . Evaluation of Gait Smoothness in Patients with Stroke Undergoing Rehabilitation: Comparison between Two Metrics. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(20). PMC: 9603299. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013440. View

11.

Pavei G, Seminati E, Cazzola D, Minetti A . On the Estimation Accuracy of the 3D Body Center of Mass Trajectory during Human Locomotion: Inverse vs. Forward Dynamics. Front Physiol. 2017; 8:129. PMC: 5340980. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00129. View

12.

Mohamed Refai M, Saes M, Scheltinga B, van Kordelaar J, Bussmann J, Veltink P . Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose?. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021; 18(1):154. PMC: 8549250. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6. View

13.

Harris C, Wolpert D . Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 1998; 394(6695):780-4. DOI: 10.1038/29528. View

14.

Bergamini E, Ligorio G, Summa A, Vannozzi G, Cappozzo A, Sabatini A . Estimating orientation using magnetic and inertial sensors and different sensor fusion approaches: accuracy assessment in manual and locomotion tasks. Sensors (Basel). 2014; 14(10):18625-49. PMC: 4239903. DOI: 10.3390/s141018625. View

15.

Balasubramanian S, Melendez-Calderon A, Roby-Brami A, Burdet E . On the analysis of movement smoothness. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015; 12:112. PMC: 4674971. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0090-9. View

16.

Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Igo Krebs H, Hughes R, Volpe B, Frontera W . Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002; 22(18):8297-304. PMC: 6758113. View

17.

Basel J, Simonetti E, Bergamini E, Pillet H . On the impact of the erroneous identification of inertial sensors' locations on segments and whole-body centers of mass accelerations: a sensitivity study in one transfemoral amputee. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2021; 59(10):2115-2126. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-021-02431-w. View

18.

Hogan N, Sternad D . On rhythmic and discrete movements: reflections, definitions and implications for motor control. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 181(1):13-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0899-y. View

19.

Alvarez J, Alvarez D, Lopez A . Accelerometry-Based Distance Estimation for Ambulatory Human Motion Analysis. Sensors (Basel). 2018; 18(12). PMC: 6308986. DOI: 10.3390/s18124441. View

20.

Floor-Westerdijk M, Schepers H, Veltink P, van Asseldonk E, Buurke J . Use of inertial sensors for ambulatory assessment of center-of-mass displacements during walking. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012; 59(7):2080-4. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2197211. View