Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection

Autores
Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia; Acevedo, Ruben; Ghoussayni, Salim; Ewins, David
Año de publicación
2014
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Purpose: A variety of methods have been proposed for detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) and some comparative analysis is reported in the literature. Pressure measurement insoles and kinematic systems are often part of footwear analysis. Although gait event detection algorithms using these systems have been proposed and evaluated against kinetic data (KN) from force platforms (typically used as a ‘gold standard’), they have not been compared directly. The objective of this work was to undertake this comparison using the same volunteer dataset and test conditions. Methods: Data from 10 healthy adults walking at self-selected normal speed were collected. Two kinematic algorithms (one using a fixed threshold, KM, and the other using high pass-filtering, HPA) and one algorithm using pressure measurement data from an insole (Contact Area Detection, AD) were tested and compared with the detection provided by KN. All data were synchronised and sampled at 200 Hz. Six basic spatio-temporal parameters were also calculated. Results: The absolute mean difference (AMD) in event detection between the three methods and KN was below 25 ms. However, the methods presented tendencies to detect events earlier or later than KN and this influenced the AMD between the methods, which increased to 47 ms for IC detection between HPA and AD. The spatio-temporal parameters showed no statistically significant differences between AD and KM, but differences reached statistical significance between AD and HPA. Conclusion: It is possible to compare gait events and basic spatio-temporal parameters detected using data from pressure measurement insoles and kinematic algorithms; however the kinematic algorithm used will influence the results. Hence the comparison of findings from alternative detection methods is an important issue for which information about the behaviour of the method used is required.
Fil: Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; Argentina. University of Surrey; Reino Unido. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Acevedo, Ruben. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; Argentina
Fil: Ghoussayni, Salim. University Of Surrey; Reino Unido
Fil: Ewins, David. University of Surrey; Reino Unido
Materia
Gait Event Detection
Pressure Detection
Kinetic
Kinematic
Initial Contact
Foot Off
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/35333

id CONICETDig_528ea6661d200295b277474bc027eaf0
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/35333
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detectionCatalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea LuciaAcevedo, RubenGhoussayni, SalimEwins, DavidGait Event DetectionPressure DetectionKineticKinematicInitial ContactFoot Offhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Purpose: A variety of methods have been proposed for detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) and some comparative analysis is reported in the literature. Pressure measurement insoles and kinematic systems are often part of footwear analysis. Although gait event detection algorithms using these systems have been proposed and evaluated against kinetic data (KN) from force platforms (typically used as a ‘gold standard’), they have not been compared directly. The objective of this work was to undertake this comparison using the same volunteer dataset and test conditions. Methods: Data from 10 healthy adults walking at self-selected normal speed were collected. Two kinematic algorithms (one using a fixed threshold, KM, and the other using high pass-filtering, HPA) and one algorithm using pressure measurement data from an insole (Contact Area Detection, AD) were tested and compared with the detection provided by KN. All data were synchronised and sampled at 200 Hz. Six basic spatio-temporal parameters were also calculated. Results: The absolute mean difference (AMD) in event detection between the three methods and KN was below 25 ms. However, the methods presented tendencies to detect events earlier or later than KN and this influenced the AMD between the methods, which increased to 47 ms for IC detection between HPA and AD. The spatio-temporal parameters showed no statistically significant differences between AD and KM, but differences reached statistical significance between AD and HPA. Conclusion: It is possible to compare gait events and basic spatio-temporal parameters detected using data from pressure measurement insoles and kinematic algorithms; however the kinematic algorithm used will influence the results. Hence the comparison of findings from alternative detection methods is an important issue for which information about the behaviour of the method used is required.Fil: Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; Argentina. University of Surrey; Reino Unido. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Acevedo, Ruben. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; ArgentinaFil: Ghoussayni, Salim. University Of Surrey; Reino UnidoFil: Ewins, David. University of Surrey; Reino UnidoTaylor & Francis2014-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/35333Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia; Acevedo, Ruben; Ghoussayni, Salim; Ewins, David; Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection; Taylor & Francis; Footwear Science; 6; 3; 5-2014; 193-2021942-4280CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/19424280.2014.917123info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19424280.2014.917123info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:47:12Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/35333instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:47:12.953CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
title Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
spellingShingle Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia
Gait Event Detection
Pressure Detection
Kinetic
Kinematic
Initial Contact
Foot Off
title_short Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
title_full Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
title_fullStr Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
title_sort Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia
Acevedo, Ruben
Ghoussayni, Salim
Ewins, David
author Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia
author_facet Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia
Acevedo, Ruben
Ghoussayni, Salim
Ewins, David
author_role author
author2 Acevedo, Ruben
Ghoussayni, Salim
Ewins, David
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Gait Event Detection
Pressure Detection
Kinetic
Kinematic
Initial Contact
Foot Off
topic Gait Event Detection
Pressure Detection
Kinetic
Kinematic
Initial Contact
Foot Off
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Purpose: A variety of methods have been proposed for detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) and some comparative analysis is reported in the literature. Pressure measurement insoles and kinematic systems are often part of footwear analysis. Although gait event detection algorithms using these systems have been proposed and evaluated against kinetic data (KN) from force platforms (typically used as a ‘gold standard’), they have not been compared directly. The objective of this work was to undertake this comparison using the same volunteer dataset and test conditions. Methods: Data from 10 healthy adults walking at self-selected normal speed were collected. Two kinematic algorithms (one using a fixed threshold, KM, and the other using high pass-filtering, HPA) and one algorithm using pressure measurement data from an insole (Contact Area Detection, AD) were tested and compared with the detection provided by KN. All data were synchronised and sampled at 200 Hz. Six basic spatio-temporal parameters were also calculated. Results: The absolute mean difference (AMD) in event detection between the three methods and KN was below 25 ms. However, the methods presented tendencies to detect events earlier or later than KN and this influenced the AMD between the methods, which increased to 47 ms for IC detection between HPA and AD. The spatio-temporal parameters showed no statistically significant differences between AD and KM, but differences reached statistical significance between AD and HPA. Conclusion: It is possible to compare gait events and basic spatio-temporal parameters detected using data from pressure measurement insoles and kinematic algorithms; however the kinematic algorithm used will influence the results. Hence the comparison of findings from alternative detection methods is an important issue for which information about the behaviour of the method used is required.
Fil: Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; Argentina. University of Surrey; Reino Unido. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Acevedo, Ruben. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ingeniería; Argentina
Fil: Ghoussayni, Salim. University Of Surrey; Reino Unido
Fil: Ewins, David. University of Surrey; Reino Unido
description Purpose: A variety of methods have been proposed for detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) and some comparative analysis is reported in the literature. Pressure measurement insoles and kinematic systems are often part of footwear analysis. Although gait event detection algorithms using these systems have been proposed and evaluated against kinetic data (KN) from force platforms (typically used as a ‘gold standard’), they have not been compared directly. The objective of this work was to undertake this comparison using the same volunteer dataset and test conditions. Methods: Data from 10 healthy adults walking at self-selected normal speed were collected. Two kinematic algorithms (one using a fixed threshold, KM, and the other using high pass-filtering, HPA) and one algorithm using pressure measurement data from an insole (Contact Area Detection, AD) were tested and compared with the detection provided by KN. All data were synchronised and sampled at 200 Hz. Six basic spatio-temporal parameters were also calculated. Results: The absolute mean difference (AMD) in event detection between the three methods and KN was below 25 ms. However, the methods presented tendencies to detect events earlier or later than KN and this influenced the AMD between the methods, which increased to 47 ms for IC detection between HPA and AD. The spatio-temporal parameters showed no statistically significant differences between AD and KM, but differences reached statistical significance between AD and HPA. Conclusion: It is possible to compare gait events and basic spatio-temporal parameters detected using data from pressure measurement insoles and kinematic algorithms; however the kinematic algorithm used will influence the results. Hence the comparison of findings from alternative detection methods is an important issue for which information about the behaviour of the method used is required.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/35333
Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia; Acevedo, Ruben; Ghoussayni, Salim; Ewins, David; Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection; Taylor & Francis; Footwear Science; 6; 3; 5-2014; 193-202
1942-4280
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/35333
identifier_str_mv Catalfamo Formento, Paola Andrea Lucia; Acevedo, Ruben; Ghoussayni, Salim; Ewins, David; Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection; Taylor & Francis; Footwear Science; 6; 3; 5-2014; 193-202
1942-4280
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/19424280.2014.917123
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19424280.2014.917123
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613471033884672
score 13.070432