A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings
Injuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/12/4433 |
| _version_ | 1797482455043670016 |
|---|---|
| author | So Young Baek Mirel Ajdaroski Payam Mirshams Shahshahani Mélanie L. Beaulieu Amanda O. Esquivel James A. Ashton-Miller |
| author_facet | So Young Baek Mirel Ajdaroski Payam Mirshams Shahshahani Mélanie L. Beaulieu Amanda O. Esquivel James A. Ashton-Miller |
| author_sort | So Young Baek |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Injuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle. Data from a total of 852 trials were compared using the Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoAs): the Certus system was considered the gold standard measure for the angle change measurements, whereas the IMU was considered the gold standard for angular velocity changes. The results show that, although the mean peak IMU knee joint angle changes were slightly underestimated (2.1° for flexion, 0.2° for internal rotation, and 3.0° for valgus), the LoAs were large, ranging from 35.9% to 49.8%. In the case of the angular velocity changes, Certus had acceptable accuracy in the sagittal plane, with LoAs of ±54.9°/s and ±32.5°/s for the tibia and femur. For these rapid motions, we conclude that, even in the absence of soft tissues, the IMUs could not reliably measure these peak 3D knee angle changes; Certus measurements of peak tibiofemoral angular velocity changes depended on both the magnitude of the velocity and the plane of measurement. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T22:32:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-274c62a2bb8b48c580f69d1ca9539316 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T22:32:36Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-274c62a2bb8b48c580f69d1ca95393162023-11-23T18:53:25ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202022-06-012212443310.3390/s22124433A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot LandingsSo Young Baek0Mirel Ajdaroski1Payam Mirshams Shahshahani2Mélanie L. Beaulieu3Amanda O. Esquivel4James A. Ashton-Miller5Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USADepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48128, USADepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USADepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USADepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48128, USADepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USAInjuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle. Data from a total of 852 trials were compared using the Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoAs): the Certus system was considered the gold standard measure for the angle change measurements, whereas the IMU was considered the gold standard for angular velocity changes. The results show that, although the mean peak IMU knee joint angle changes were slightly underestimated (2.1° for flexion, 0.2° for internal rotation, and 3.0° for valgus), the LoAs were large, ranging from 35.9% to 49.8%. In the case of the angular velocity changes, Certus had acceptable accuracy in the sagittal plane, with LoAs of ±54.9°/s and ±32.5°/s for the tibia and femur. For these rapid motions, we conclude that, even in the absence of soft tissues, the IMUs could not reliably measure these peak 3D knee angle changes; Certus measurements of peak tibiofemoral angular velocity changes depended on both the magnitude of the velocity and the plane of measurement.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/12/4433ACL injuryinertial measurement units (IMU)motion capturejump landingknee kinematics |
| spellingShingle | So Young Baek Mirel Ajdaroski Payam Mirshams Shahshahani Mélanie L. Beaulieu Amanda O. Esquivel James A. Ashton-Miller A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings Sensors ACL injury inertial measurement units (IMU) motion capture jump landing knee kinematics |
| title | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
| title_full | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
| title_short | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
| title_sort | comparison of inertial measurement unit and motion capture measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during simulated pivot landings |
| topic | ACL injury inertial measurement units (IMU) motion capture jump landing knee kinematics |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/12/4433 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT soyoungbaek acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT mirelajdaroski acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT payammirshamsshahshahani acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT melanielbeaulieu acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT amandaoesquivel acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT jamesaashtonmiller acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT soyoungbaek comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT mirelajdaroski comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT payammirshamsshahshahani comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT melanielbeaulieu comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT amandaoesquivel comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT jamesaashtonmiller comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings |