Library
local_library Home Repository

Reliability and Validity of IMU-Based Foot Progression Angle Measurement under Different Gait Retraining Strategies

Journal Article (2022)
Authors

Francine C.A. Urbanus (Student TU Delft)

Jane Grayson (University of Sydney)

Jaap Harlaar (TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control, Erasmus MC)

Milena Simic (University of Sydney)

Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Copyright
© 2022 Francine C.A. Urbanus, Jane Grayson, J. Harlaar, Milena Simic
To reference this document use:
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136519
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2022
Language
English
Copyright
© 2022 Francine C.A. Urbanus, Jane Grayson, J. Harlaar, Milena Simic
Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Issue number
13
Volume number
12
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136519
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Load modifying gait retraining strategies, such as changing the foot progression angle (FPA) to toe-in and toe-out gait, are used for people with medial knee osteoarthritis. The FPA can be measured using a pressure sensitive walkway (PSW), but inertial measurement units (IMUs) are considered more suitable for clinical use. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of an IMU system, to measure FPA under different gait retraining strategies. Twenty healthy participants walked a 10-m-long path using different gait strategies (natural (2), toe-out gait (1), toe-in gait (1)) during four 90-s trials. FPA was measured simultaneously with IMUs and a PSW, the latter considered the reference standard. There was good and excellent reliability for the IMUs and PSW FPA measurements, respectively (ICC: IMU, 0.89; PSW, 0.97). Minimal detectable change (MDC) was 4.5° for the IMUs and 2.7° for the PSW. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant effect of gait type on FPA (p < 0.001), but not the measurement instrument (p = 0.875). Bland–Altman plots demonstrated the good agreement of both systems for the baseline condition, though the IMUs seemed to consistently overestimate the FPA value compared to the PSW. In conclusion, IMUs are a reliable and valid measurement system for measuring FPA under different gait retraining strategies. The differences between the systems are significant for all gait strategies, so the systems should not be used interchangeably.