10.1145/3154862.3154888acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpsprocConference Proceedings
research-article

Joint angles tracking for rehabilitation at home using inertial sensors: a feasibility study

ABSTRACT

Joint angles are commonly measured in physical rehabilitation to evaluate joint function. Evidences showed that wearable inertial sensors can accurately quantify human motion information, however, the most advanced and accurate methodologies require the execution of complex calibration movements which are unsuitable to inexpert users and inadequate for a home context. This way, four different joint angles estimation methods requiring no calibration movement were developed in order to track the main human body joint angles in real time. IMUs mounted in bracelets were used to restrict sensor positioning on the limbs. For six different exercises, the estimated absolute and relative joint angles were evaluated against the marker-based video tracking software Kinovea ground-truth. Correlation analysis between estimated and ground-truth joint angles indicated a very strong and statistically significant correlation. The average error in estimated joint angles is below 5 degrees for all four methods employed, which may be an acceptable result for the rehabilitation at home scenario.

References

  1. Marcelo Kallmann, Carlo Camporesi and Jay Han. 2015. VR-Assisted Physical Rehabilitation: Adapting to the Needs of Therapists and Patients. Virtual Realities, 147--168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Oonagh M. Giggins, Kevin T. Sweeney and Brian Caulfield. 2014. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 11, 158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I, Alejandro Galán-Mercant, and Jonathan M Williams. 2017. The Use of Inertial Sensors System for Human Motion Analysis. Physical Therapy Reviews 15, 6462--473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lee Morton, Lynne Baillie and Roberto Ramirez-Iniguez. 2013. Pose Calibrations for Inertial Sensors in Rehabilitation Applications. In1st International Workshop on e-Health Pervasive Wireless Applications and Services (eHPWAS'13), 215--222Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Aras Yurtman and Billur Barshan. 2013. Detection and evaluation of physical therapy exercises by dynamic time warping using wearable motion sensor units. Information Sciences and Systems Springer 305--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Iván Raso, Ramón Hervás and José Bravo. 2010. m-Physio: Personalized Accelerometer-based Physical Rehabilitation Platform. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Mobile Ubiquitous Computing, Systems, Services and Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mahmoud Ahmed El-Gohary. 2013. Joint Angle Tracking with Inertial Sensors. PhD Dissertation. Portland State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Thomas Seel, Jörg Raisch and Thomas Schauer. 2014. IMU-Based Joint Angle Measurement for Gait Analysis. Sensors 14, 4: 6891--6909.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. R. Nerino, L. Contin, A. Tirri, G. Massazza, A. Chimienti, G. Pettiti, N. Cau and V. Cimolin. 2014. An improved solution for knee rehabilitation at home. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Body Area Networks (BodyNets'14), 62--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bruno Bonnechère, Bart Jansen, Lubos Omeline and Serge Van Sint Jan. 2016. The use of commercial video games in rehabilitation: a systematic review. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 39, 4: 277--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. OpenStax College, Anatomy and Physiology. OpenStax CNX, {Online}. Retrieved November 15, 2016 from http://philschatz.com/anatomy-book/contents/m46402.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kinovea. Retrieved January 26, 2017 from https://www.kinovea.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapleau, Julien, Fanny Canet, Yvan Petit, G-Yves Laflamme and Dominique m.Rouleau. 2011. Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method.Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 469, 11:3134--3140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David Krause, Michael Boyd, Allison Hager, Eric Smoyer, Anthony Thompson and John Hollman. 2015. Reliability and accuracy of a goniometer mobile device application for video measurement of the functional movement screen deep squat test. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 10, 1 37--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sidia Callegari-Jacques. 2003. Bioestatística: princípios e aplicações. Artmed, Ed.: Porto Alegre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Timothy Carter, et al. 2009. Accuracy and Reliability of three different techniques for manual goniometry for wrist motion: a cadaveric study. Journal of hand surgery 34, 8: 1422--1428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Damsted, Camma, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, and Lars Henrik Larsen. 2015. Reliability of video-based quantification of the knee and hip angle at foot strike during running. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 10, 2: 147--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!