Azure Kinect performance evaluation for human motion and upper limb biomechanical analysis.

Human motion tracking is a valuable task for many medical applications. Marker-based optoelectronic systems are considered the gold standard in human motion tracking. However, their use is not always feasible in clinics and industrial environments. On the other hand, marker-less sensors became valuable tools, as they are inexpensive, noninvasive and easy to use. However, their accuracy can depend on many factors including sensor positioning, light conditions and body occlusions. In this study, following previous works on the feasibility of marker-less systems for human motion monitoring, we investigate the performance of the Microsoft Azure Kinect sensor in computing kinematic and dynamic measurements of static postures and dynamic movements. According to our knowledge, it is the first time that this sensor is compared with a Vicon marker-based system to assess the best camera positioning while observing the upper body part movements of people performing several tasks. Twenty-five healthy volunteers were monitored to evaluate the effects of the several testing conditions, including the Azure Kinect positions, the light conditions, and lower limbs occlusions, on the tracking accuracy of kinematic, dynamic, and motor control parameters. From the statistical analysis of the performed measurements, the camera in the frontal position was the most reliable, the lighting conditions had almost no effects on the tracking accuracy, while the lower limbs occlusion worsened the accuracy of the upper limbs. The assessment of human static postures and dynamic movements based on experimental data proves the feasibility of applying the Azure Kinect to the biomechanical monitoring of human motion in several fields.

Free-living and laboratory gait characteristics in patients with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Wearable sensors offer the potential to bring new knowledge to inform interventions in patients affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) by thoroughly quantifying gait characteristics and gait deficits from prolonged daily living measurements. The aim of this study was to characterise gait in both laboratory and daily life conditions for a group of patients with moderate to severe ambulatory impairment due to MS. To this purpose, algorithms to detect and characterise gait from wearable inertial sensors data were also validated. METHODS: Fourteen patients with MS were divided into two groups according to their disability level (EDSS 6.5-6.0 and EDSS 5.5-5.0, respectively). They performed both intermittent and continuous walking bouts (WBs) in a gait laboratory wearing waist and shank mounted inertial sensors. An algorithm (W-CWT) to estimate gait events and temporal parameters (mean and variability values) using data recorded from the waist mounted sensor (Dynaport, Mc Roberts) was tested against a reference algorithm (S-REF) based on the shank-worn sensors (OPAL, APDM). Subsequently, the accuracy of another algorithm (W-PAM) to detect and classify WBs was also tested. The validated algorithms were then used to quantify gait characteristics during short (sWB, 5-50 steps), intermediate (iWB, 51-100 steps) and long (lWB, >100 steps) daily living WBs and laboratory walking. Group means were compared using a two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: W-CWT compared to S-REF showed good gait event accuracy (0.05-0.10 s absolute error) and was not influenced by disability level. It slightly overestimated stride time in intermittent walking (0.012 s) and overestimated highly variability of temporal parameters in both intermittent (17.5%-58.2%) and continuous walking (11.2%-76.7%). The accuracy of W-PAM was speed-dependent and decreased with increasing disability. The ANOVA analysis showed that patients walked at a slower pace in daily living than in the laboratory. In daily living gait, all mean temporal parameters decreased as the WB duration increased. In the sWB, the patients with a lower disability score showed, on average, lower values of the temporal parameters. Variability decreased as the WB duration increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study validated a method to quantify walking in real life in people with MS and showed how gait characteristics estimated from short walking bouts during daily living may be the most informative to quantify level of disability and effects of interventions in patients moderately affected by MS. The study provides a robust approach for the quantification of recognised clinically relevant outcomes and an innovative perspective in the study of real life walking.

Gait event detection in laboratory and real life settings: Accuracy of ankle and waist sensor based methods.

Wearable sensors technology based on inertial measurement units (IMUs) is leading the transition from laboratory-based gait analysis, to daily life gait monitoring. However, the validity of IMU-based methods for the detection of gait events has only been tested in laboratory settings, which may not reproduce real life walking patterns. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two algorithms for the detection of gait events and temporal parameters during free-living walking, one based on two shank-worn inertial sensors, and the other based on one waist-worn sensor. The algorithms were applied to gait data of ten healthy subjects walking both indoor and outdoor, and completing protocols that entailed both straight supervised and free walking in an urban environment. The values obtained from the inertial sensors were compared to pressure insoles data. The shank-based method showed very accurate initial contact, stride time and step time estimation (<14ms error). Accuracy of final contact timings and stance time was lower (28-51ms error range). The error of temporal parameter variability estimates was in the range 0.09-0.89%. The waist method failed to detect about 1% of the total steps and performed worse than the shank method, but the temporal parameter estimation was still satisfactory. Both methods showed negligible differences in their accuracy when the different experimental conditions were compared, which suggests their applicability in the analysis of free-living gait.

Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

The aim of this study was to compare the seven following commercially available activity monitors in terms of step count detection accuracy: Movemonitor (Mc Roberts), Up (Jawbone), One (Fitbit), ActivPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd.), Nike+ Fuelband (Nike Inc.), Tractivity (Kineteks Corp.) and Sensewear Armband Mini (Bodymedia). Sixteen healthy adults consented to take part in the study. The experimental protocol included walking along an indoor straight walkway, descending and ascending 24 steps, free outdoor walking and free indoor walking. These tasks were repeated at three self-selected walking speeds. Angular velocity signals collected at both shanks using two wireless inertial measurement units (OPAL, ADPM Inc) were used as a reference for the step count, computed using previously validated algorithms. Step detection accuracy was assessed using the mean absolute percentage error computed for each sensor. The Movemonitor and the ActivPAL were also tested within a nine-minute activity recognition protocol, during which the participants performed a set of complex tasks. Posture classifications were obtained from the two monitors and expressed as a percentage of the total task duration. The Movemonitor, One, ActivPAL, Nike+ Fuelband and Sensewear Armband Mini underestimated the number of steps in all the observed walking speeds, whereas the Tractivity significantly overestimated step count. The Movemonitor was the best performing sensor, with an error lower than 2% at all speeds and the smallest error obtained in the outdoor walking. The activity recognition protocol showed that the Movemonitor performed best in the walking recognition, but had difficulty in discriminating between standing and sitting. Results of this study can be used to inform choice of a monitor for specific applications.