Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp 1251–1260 | Cite as

An adaptive gyroscope-based algorithm for temporal gait analysis

  • Barry R. GreeneEmail author
  • Denise McGrath
  • Ross O’Neill
  • Karol J. O’Donovan
  • Adrian Burns
  • Brian Caulfield
Original Article


Body-worn kinematic sensors have been widely proposed as the optimal solution for portable, low cost, ambulatory monitoring of gait. This study aims to evaluate an adaptive gyroscope-based algorithm for automated temporal gait analysis using body-worn wireless gyroscopes. Gyroscope data from nine healthy adult subjects performing four walks at four different speeds were then compared against data acquired simultaneously using two force plates and an optical motion capture system. Data from a poliomyelitis patient, exhibiting pathological gait walking with and without the aid of a crutch, were also compared to the force plate. Results show that the mean true error between the adaptive gyroscope algorithm and force plate was −4.5 ± 14.4 ms and 43.4 ± 6.0 ms for IC and TC points, respectively, in healthy subjects. Similarly, the mean true error when data from the polio patient were compared against the force plate was −75.61 ± 27.53 ms and 99.20 ± 46.00 ms for IC and TC points, respectively. A comparison of the present algorithm against temporal gait parameters derived from an optical motion analysis system showed good agreement for nine healthy subjects at four speeds. These results show that the algorithm reported here could constitute the basis of a robust, portable, low-cost system for ambulatory monitoring of gait.


Gyroscope Gait analysis Adaptive algorithm Body-worn sensors 



This research was completed as part of a wider programme of research within the TRIL Centre (Technology Research for Independent Living). The TRIL Centre is a multi-disciplinary research centre, bringing together researchers from UCD, TCD, NUIG, Intel, and GE Healthcare, funded by Intel, GE Healthcare and IDA Ireland ( The authors would like to thank Dr. Emer Doheny for providing useful feedback on the manuscript as well as Mr. Ben Dromey for his help with graphically detailing the experimental layout.


  1. 1.
    Aminian K et al (2002) Spatio-temporal parameters of gait measured by an ambulatory system using miniature gyroscopes. J Biomech 35(5):689–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aminian K et al (2004) Evaluation of an ambulatory system for gait analysis in hip osteoarthritis and after total hip replacement. Gait Posture 20(1):102–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8(2):135–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns A et al (2010) SHIMMER™—a Wireless sensor platform for non-invasive biomedical research. IEEE Sens 10(9):1527–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns A et al (2010) Open shareable research platform for developing interoperable personal health systems. In: 1st AMA-IEEE medical technology conference on individualized medicine, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catalfamo P et al (2008) Detection of gait events using an F-Scan in-shoe pressure measurement system. Gait Posture 28(3):420–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cutti A et al (2010) ‘Outwalk’: a protocol for clinical gait analysis based on inertial and magnetic sensors. Med Biol Eng Comput 48(1):17–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Chazal P, Reilly RB (2006) A patient-adapting heartbeat classifier using ECG morphology and heartbeat interval features. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(12):2535–2543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferraris F, Grimaldi U, Parvis M (1995) Procedure for effortless in-field calibration of three-axis rate gyros and accelerometers. Sens Mater 7(5):311–330Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frenkel-Toledo S et al (2005) Effect of gait speed on gait rhythmicity in Parkinson’s disease: variability of stride time and swing time respond differently. J Neuroeng Rehabil 31:2–23Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han J et al (2009) Adaptive windowing for gait phase discrimination in Parkinsonian gait using 3-axis acceleration signals. Med Biol Eng Comput 47(11):1155–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hausdorff JM et al (1997) Altered fractal dynamics of gait: reduced stride-interval correlations with aging and Huntington’s disease. J Appl Physiol 82(1):262–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hreljac A, Marshall RN (2000) Algorithms to determine event timing during normal walking using kinematic data. J Biomech 33(6):783–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iasemidis LD et al (2003) Adaptive epileptic seizure prediction system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50(5):616–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jasiewicz JM et al (2006) Gait event detection using linear accelerometers or angular velocity transducers in able-bodied and spinal-cord injured individuals. Gait Posture 24(4):502–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotiadis D, Hermens HJ, Veltink PH (2010) Inertial gait phase detection for control of a drop foot stimulator: inertial sensing for gait phase detection. Med Eng Phys 32(4):287–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorincz K et al (2007) Wearable wireless sensor network to assess clinical status in patients with neurological disorders. In: 6th International symposium on information processing in sensor networksGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGrath MJ, Dishongh TJ (2009) A common personal health research platform—SHIMMER™ and BioMOBIUS™. Intel Technol J 13(3):122–147Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller A (2009) Gait event detection using a multilayer neural network. Gait Posture 29(4):542–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Najafi B et al (2002) Measurement of stand-sit and sit-stand transitions using a miniature gyroscope and its application in fall risk evaluation in the elderly. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49(8):843–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Connor CM et al (2007) Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture 25(3):469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Donovan KJ et al (2009) SHIMMER: a new tool for temporal Gait analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE engineering in medicine and biology, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rangayyan RM (2002) Biomedical signal analysis. IEEE Press/Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabatini AM et al (2005) Assessment of walking features from foot inertial sensing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52(3):486–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salarian A et al (2004) Gait assessment in Parkinson’s disease: toward an ambulatory system for long-term monitoring. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(8):1434–1443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tong K, Granat MH (1999) A practical gait analysis system using gyroscopes. Med Eng Phys 21(2):87–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zijlstra W, Hof AL (2003) Assessment of spatio-temporal gait parameters from trunk accelerations during human walking. Gait Posture 18(2):1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry R. Greene
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Denise McGrath
    • 3
  • Ross O’Neill
    • 4
  • Karol J. O’Donovan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adrian Burns
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian Caulfield
    • 5
  1. 1.Intel Digital Health Group, Leixlip, CoKildareIreland
  2. 2.The TRIL CentreDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of Physiotherapy and Performance ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  4. 4.TRIL CentreUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  5. 5.CLARITY Centre for Sensor Web Technologies, School of Physiotherapy and Performance ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations