Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis
- 1.4k Downloads
The potential of inertial measurement units (IMUs) for ergonomics applications appears promising. However, previous IMUs validation studies have been incomplete regarding aspects of joints analysed, complexity of movements and duration of trials. The objective was to determine the technological error and biomechanical model differences between IMUs and an optoelectronic system and evaluate the effect of task complexity and duration. Whole-body kinematics from 12 participants was recorded simultaneously with a full-body Xsens system where an Optotrak cluster was fixed on every IMU. Short functional movements and long manual material handling tasks were performed and joint angles were compared between the two systems. The differences attributed to the biomechanical model showed significantly greater (P ≤ .001) RMSE than the technological error. RMSE was systematically higher (P ≤ .001) for the long complex task with a mean on all joints of 2.8° compared to 1.2° during short functional movements. Definition of local coordinate systems based on anatomical landmarks or single posture was the most influent difference between the two systems. Additionally, IMUs accuracy was affected by the complexity and duration of the tasks. Nevertheless, technological error remained under 5° RMSE during handling tasks, which shows potential to track workers during their daily labour.
KeywordsInertial sensor Validation Task complexity Evaluation Performance
The authors are grateful to the IRSST for financial support of the study through grant (2012-0040) and postdoctoral scholarship program and wish to recognise the technical assistance from Sophie Bellefeuille.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 11.Fantozzi S, Giovanardi A, Magalhaes FA, Di Michele R, Cortesi M, Gatta G (2015) Assessment of three-dimensional joint kinematics of the upper limb during simulated swimming using wearable inertial-magnetic measurement units. J Sports Sci:1–8. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1088659
- 23.Reed M, Manary MA, Schneider LW (1999) Methods for measuring and representing automobile occupant posture. SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
- 24.Roetenberg D, Luinge H, Slycke P (2009) Xsens MVN: full 6DOF human motion tracking using miniature inertial sensors. Xsens Motion Technologies BV, TechRepGoogle Scholar
- 26.Schall MC, Jr., Fethke NB, Chen H, Oyama S, Douphrate DI (2015) Accuracy and repeatability of an inertial measurement unit system for field-based occupational studies. Ergonomics:1–23. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1079335
- 29.Weinberg H (2011) Gyro mechanical performance: The most important parameter. Technical article MS-2158 Analog Devices, Inc:1–5Google Scholar
- 30.Wu G, Siegler S, Allard P, Kirtley C, Leardini A, Rosenbaum D, Whittle M, D’Lima DD, Cristofolini L, Whittle H, Schmid O, Stokes I, Standardization, Terminology Committee of the International Society of B (2002) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion–part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International society of biomechanics. J Biomech 35:543–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B (2005) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion–Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 38:981–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Zatsiorsky VM (1998) Kinematics of human motion. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar