English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Video- and sensor-based gait analysis systems are rapidly emerging for use in 'real world' scenarios outside of typical instrumented motion analysis laboratories. Unlike laboratory systems, such systems do not use kinetic data from force plates, rather, gait events such as initial contact (IC) and terminal contact (TC) are estimated from video and sensor signals. There are, however, detection errors inherent in kinematic gait event detection methods (GEDM) and comparative study between classic laboratory and video/sensor-based systems is warranted. For this study, three kinematic methods: coordinate based treadmill algorithm (CBTA), shank angular velocity (SK), and foot velocity algorithm (FVA) were compared to 'gold standard' force plate methods (GS) for determining IC and TC in adults ( n = 6), typically developing children ( n = 5) and children with cerebral palsy ( n = 6). The root mean square error (RMSE) values for CBTA, SK, and FVA were 27.22, 47.33, and 78.41 ms, respectively. On average, GED was detected earlier in CBTA and SK (CBTA: -9.54 ± 0.66 ms, SK: -33.41 ± 0.86 ms) and delayed in FVA (21.00 ± 1.96 ms). The statistical model demonstrated insensitivity to variations in group, side, and individuals. Out of three kinematic GEDMs, SK GEDM can best be used for sensor-based gait event detection.

An Evaluation of Three Kinematic Methods for Gait Event Detection Compared to the Kinetic-Based ‘Gold Standard’