Advertisement

CMBEBIH 2017 pp 205-211 | Cite as

Implementation and Validation of Human Kinematics Measured Using IMUs for Musculoskeletal Simulations by the Evaluation of Joint Reaction Forces

  • Maximilian AurbachEmail author
  • Kilian Wagner
  • Franz Süß
  • Sebastian Dendorfer
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 62)

Abstract

The gold standard for the analysis of human kinematics and kinetics is a camera-based motion capture system in combination with force measurement platforms. Alternatively, inertial measurement units can be utilized to obtain human kinematics, while ground reaction forces are computed from full body dynamics. This setup represents a system independent from the spatial confinement of a gait laboratory. The aim of this study is the comparison of the two methods by the investigation of lower limb kinematics and the resulting joint reaction forces within the ankle-, knee- and hip joints. For this purpose, human motion during gait was captured simultaneously by both measurement techniques. 13 trials from 8 different test subjects were evaluated in total. IMU data was processed with a quaternion based Kalman Filter. The data sets were implemented into a musculoskeletal simulation program in order to drive a virtual human body model. Each sensor was aligned to the gravitational and magnetic field vectors of the earth. The angles of flexions, extensions and rotations were analyzed to determine kinematic differences. Joint reaction forces defined kinetic dissimilarities. The overall kinematic differences of both models yielded root mean square errors of 7.62°, 6.02°, 4.95°, 2.79°, 2.38° and 3.56° for ankle flexion, subtalar eversion, knee flexion, hip external rotation, hip abduction and hip flexion, respectively. The proximo-distal differences in force peaks between the models yielded overall for the ankle, 57.33 %Bodyweight(BW) ± 46.86 %BW (16.66 %(Maximum peak to peak) ± 13.62 %) for the knee 37.09 %BW ± 29.33 %BW (17.65 % ± 15.44 %) and 32.03 %BW ± 24.33 %BW (15.6 % ± 12.54 %) for the hip. The overall outcome of this work investigated an approach independent of the common setup of the gait laboratory, thus enabling a cheaper and more flexible technology as an alternative. However, kinematic and thus kinetic differences remain rather large. Future work aims to improve the contact criterion for the calculation of the ground reaction forces and the implementation of a full-body calibration algorithm for the IMU system in order to counteract magnetic field disturbances.

Keywords

Inertial Measurement Unit IMU Multibody Simulation Musculoskeletal Simulation AnyBody Ground Reaction Force Prediction Joint Reaction Forces Gait Motion Capture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W. S. Flenniken IV, J. H. Wall, and D. M. Bevly, “Characterization of Various IMU Error Sources and the Effect on Navigation Performance,” Ion Gnss 2005, pp. 967–978, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. M. Unit, “IMU Errors and Their Effects,” pp. 1–6, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ö. Bebek, M. A. Suster, S. Rajgopal, M. J. Fu, X. Huang, M. C. Çavusoǧlu, D. J. Young, M. Mehregany, A. J. Van Den Bogert, and C. H. Mastrangelo, “Personal navigation via high-resolution gait-corrected inertial measurement units,” in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Mahony, T. Hamel, and J. M. Pflimlin, “Nonlinear complementary filters on the special orthogonal group,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1203–1218, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Welch and G. Bishop, “An Introduction to the Kalman Filter,” In Pract., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    X. Robert, L. Hakim, M. Christian, and L. André, “Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole ‑ body motion analysis,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Seel, J. Raisch, and T. Schauer, “IMU-Based Joint Angle Measurement for Gait Analysis,” Sensors, vol. 14, pp. 6891–6909, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Leardini, G. Lullini, S. Giannini, L. Berti, M. Ortolani, and P. Caravaggi, “Validation of the angular measurements of a new inertial-measurement-unit based rehabilitation system: comparison with state-of-the-art gait analysis.”Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Seel and T. Schauer, “IMU-based Joint Angle Measurement Made Practical Introduction Inertial Measurement Units Robotic Hinge Joint vs . Human Knee,” p. 6, 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. G. Valenti, I. Dryanovski, and J. Xiao, “Keeping a Good Attitude: A Quaternion-Based Orientation Filter for IMUs and MARGs,” Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 19302–19330, 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. M. Sabatini, “Quaternion-based extended Kalman filter for determining orientation by inertial and magnetic sensing,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Fluit, M. S. Andersen, S. Kolk, N. Verdonschot, and H. F. J. M. Koopman, “Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during various activities of daily living,” J. Biomech., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2321–2329, 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. K. Antonsson and R. W. Mann, “THE FREQUENCY CONTENT OF GAIT,” vol. 18, pp. 39–47, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Bergmann, G. Deuretzbacher, M. Heller, F. Graichen, and A. Rohlmann, “Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities,” vol. 34, pp. 859–871, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Aurbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kilian Wagner
    • 1
  • Franz Süß
    • 1
  • Sebastian Dendorfer
    • 1
  1. 1.Regensburg Center of Biomedical EngineeringOTH Regensburg and University RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations