The Trip Analyser: a wearable system to assess gait and potential tripping
Abstract
A wearable Arduino system (ESP32s) is described that uses optical time of flight (VL6180X) and inertial measurement unit (SENtral EM7180) sensors to estimate the Minimum Foot Clearance (MFC) of participants during gait. It is envisaged that an affordable wearable device that can acquire kinematic data outside the laboratory over periods of several weeks may find application in falls risk assessment in those with ambulatory disorders including the elderly. A geometric model is presented, and a preliminary trial was conducted with able-bodied subjects to test the correlation and agreement of the device with a Vicon 3D motion capture system, consisting of 12 infrared cameras located at the University of Warwick. The correlation between the device and the gait laboratory data yielded a correlation coefficient of r = 0.88. Agreement was tested using the Bland-Altman plot where the line of equality was within the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference suggesting that the device can be used as an alternative to Vicon for estimating MFC.
Downloads
References
2. S. Pin and D. Spini, “Impact of falling on social participation and social support trajectories in a middle-aged and elderly European sample,” SSM - Popul. Heal., vol. 2, p. 382, Dec. 2016.
3. LIDDLE J, GILLEARD C. The emotional consequences of falls for older people and their families. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9:110-114. (1995)
4. D. A. Winter, “Foot Trajectory in Human Gait: A Precise and Multifactorial Motor Control Task,” Phys. Ther., vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 45–53, Jan. 2017.
5. R. Begg, R. Best, L. Dell’Oro, and S. Taylor, “Minimum foot clearance during walking: Strategies for the minimisation of trip-related falls,” Gait Posture, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 191–198, Feb. 2007.
6. B. Najafi, T. Khan, and J. Wrobel, “Laboratory in a box: Wearable sensors and its advantages for gait analysis,” in 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2011, vol. 2011, pp. 6507–6510.
7. S. J. M. Bamberg, A. Y. Benbasat, D. M. Scarborough, D. E. Krebs, J. A. Paradiso, and S. Member, “Gait Analysis Using a Shoe-Integrated Wireless Sensor System,” vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 413–423, 2008.
8. P. D. Duong and Y. S. Suh, “Foot pose estimation using an inertial sensor unit and two distance sensors,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 15888–15902, 2015.
9. Kerr, D. Rafferty, P. Dall, P. Smit, and P. Barrie, “Using an Optical Proximity Sensor to Measure Foot Clearance During Gait: Agreement With Motion Analysis,” J. Med. Device., vol. 4, no. 3, p. 031004, 2010.
10. J. Kvam, “Time of Flight: Principles, Challenges and Performance,” p. 12, 2017.
11. D. Giavarina, “Understanding Bland Altman analysis,” Biochem. Medica, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 141–151, 2015.
12. “VL53L0X World’s smallest Time-of-Flight ranging and gesture detection,” no. April, 2018.
13. Service, “VL53L1X A new generation, long distance ranging Time-of-Flight sensor based on ST’ s FlightSense TM technology,” no. November, pp. 1–35, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Hellenica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
