Validation of an algorithm to assess regular and irregular gait using inertial sensors in healthy and stroke individuals.

Background: Studies using inertial measurement units (IMUs) for gait assessment have shown promising results regarding accuracy of gait event detection and spatiotemporal parameters. However, performance of such algorithms is challenged in irregular walking patterns, such as in individuals with gait deficits. Based on the literature, we developed an algorithm to detect initial contact (IC) and terminal contact (TC) and calculate spatiotemporal gait parameters. We evaluated the validity of this algorithm for regular and irregular gait patterns against a 3D optical motion capture system (OMCS). Methods: Twenty healthy participants (aged 59 ± 12 years) and 10 people in the chronic phase after stroke (aged 61 ± 11 years) were equipped with 4 IMUs: on both feet, sternum and lower back (MTw Awinda, Xsens) and 26 reflective makers. Participants walked on an instrumented treadmill for 2 minutes (i) with their preferred stride lengths and (ii) once with irregular stride lengths (±20% deviation) induced by light projected stepping stones. Accuracy of the algorithm was evaluated on stride-by-stride agreement of IC, TC, stride time, length and velocity with OMCS. Bland-Altman-like plots were made for the spatiotemporal parameters, while differences in detection of IC and TC time instances were shown in histogram plots. Performance of the algorithm was compared between regular and irregular gait with a linear mixed model. This was done by comparing the performance in healthy participants in the regular vs irregular walking condition, and by comparing the agreement in healthy participants with stroke participants in the regular walking condition. Results: For each condition at least 1,500 strides were included for analysis. Compared to OMCS, IMU-based IC detection in both groups and condition was on average 9-17 (SD ranging from 7 to 35) ms, while IMU-based TC was on average 15-24 (SD ranging from 12 to 35) ms earlier. When comparing regular and irregular gait in healthy participants, the difference between methods was 2.5 ms higher for IC, 3.4 ms lower for TC, 0.3 cm lower for stride length, and 0.4 cm/s higher for stride velocity in the irregular walking condition. No difference was found on stride time. When comparing the differences between methods between healthy and stroke participants, the difference between methods was 7.6 ms lower for IC, 3.8 cm lower for stride length, and 3.4 cm/s lower for stride velocity in stroke participants. No differences were found on differences between methods on TC detection and stride time between stroke and healthy participants. Conclusions: Small irrelevant differences were found on gait event detection and spatiotemporal parameters due to irregular walking by imposing irregular stride lengths or pathological (stroke) gait. Furthermore, IMUs seem equally good compared to OMCS to assess gait variability based on stride time, but less accurate based on stride length.

The Influence of Stride Selection on Gait Parameters Collected with Inertial Sensors.

Different methods exist to select strides that represent preferred, steady-state gait. The aim of this study was to identify the effect of different stride-selection methods on spatiotemporal gait parameters to analyze steady-state gait. A total of 191 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (aged 38-85) wearing inertial sensors walked back and forth over 10 m for two minutes. After the removal of strides in turns, five stride-selection methods were compared: (ALL) include all strides, others removed (REFERENCE) two strides around turns, (ONE) one stride around turns, (LENGTH) strides <63% of median stride length, and (SPEED) strides that fall outside the 95% confidence interval of gait speed over the strides included in REFERENCE. Means and SDs of gait parameters were compared for each trial against the most conservative definition (REFERENCE). ONE and SPEED definitions resulted in similar means and SDs compared to REFERENCE, while ALL and LENGTH definitions resulted in substantially higher SDs of all gait parameters. An in-depth analysis of individual strides showed that the first two strides after and last two strides before a turn were significantly different from steady-state walking. Therefore, it is suggested to exclude the first two strides around turns to assess steady-state gait.