Upper body motion tracking with inertial sensors

Author(s):  
Yujin Jung ◽  
Donghoon Kang ◽  
Jinwook Kim
Author(s):  
Shinya UEDA ◽  
Akihito ITO ◽  
Nobutaka TSUJIUCHI ◽  
Keisuke KITANO

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 2108
Author(s):  
Maik Boltes ◽  
Juliane Adrian ◽  
Anna-Katharina Raytarowski

For our understanding of the dynamics inside crowds, reliable empirical data are needed, which could enable increases in safety and comfort for pedestrians and the design of models reflecting the real dynamics. A well-calibrated camera system can extract absolute head position with high accuracy. The inclusion of inertial sensors or even self-contained full-body motion capturing systems allows the relative tracking of invisible people or body parts or capturing the locomotion of the whole body even in dense crowds. The newly introduced hybrid system maps the trajectory of the top of the head coming from a full-body motion tracking system to the head trajectory of a camera system in global space. The fused data enable the analysis of possible correlations of all observables. In this paper we present an experiment of people passing though a bottleneck and show by example the influences of bottleneck width and motivation on the overall movement, velocity, stepping locomotion and rotation of the pelvis. The hybrid tracking system opens up new possibilities for analyzing pedestrian dynamics inside crowds, such as the space requirement while passing through a bottleneck. The system allows linking any body motion to characteristics describing the situation of a person inside a crowd, such as the density or movements of other participants nearby.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon J. Boekesteijn ◽  
José M. H. Smolders ◽  
Vincent J. J. F. Busch ◽  
Alexander C. H. Geurts ◽  
Katrijn Smulders

Abstract Background Although it is well-established that osteoarthritis (OA) impairs daily-life gait, objective gait assessments are not part of routine clinical evaluation. Wearable inertial sensors provide an easily accessible and fast way to routinely evaluate gait quality in clinical settings. However, during these assessments, more complex and meaningful aspects of daily-life gait, including turning, dual-task performance, and upper body motion, are often overlooked. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate turning, dual-task performance, and upper body motion in individuals with knee or hip OA in addition to more commonly assessed spatiotemporal gait parameters using wearable sensors. Methods Gait was compared between individuals with unilateral knee (n = 25) or hip OA (n = 26) scheduled for joint replacement, and healthy controls (n = 27). For 2 min, participants walked back and forth along a 6-m trajectory making 180° turns, with and without a secondary cognitive task. Gait parameters were collected using 4 inertial measurement units on the feet and trunk. To test if dual-task gait, turning, and upper body motion had added value above spatiotemporal parameters, a factor analysis was conducted. Effect sizes were computed as standardized mean difference between OA groups and healthy controls to identify parameters from these gait domains that were sensitive to knee or hip OA. Results Four independent domains of gait were obtained: speed-spatial, speed-temporal, dual-task cost, and upper body motion. Turning parameters constituted a gait domain together with cadence. From the domains that were obtained, stride length (speed-spatial) and cadence (speed-temporal) had the strongest effect sizes for both knee and hip OA. Upper body motion (lumbar sagittal range of motion), showed a strong effect size when comparing hip OA with healthy controls. Parameters reflecting dual-task cost were not sensitive to knee or hip OA. Conclusions Besides more commonly reported spatiotemporal parameters, only upper body motion provided non-redundant and sensitive parameters representing gait adaptations in individuals with hip OA. Turning parameters were sensitive to knee and hip OA, but were not independent from speed-related gait parameters. Dual-task parameters had limited additional value for evaluating gait in knee and hip OA, although dual-task cost constituted a separate gait domain. Future steps should include testing responsiveness of these gait domains to interventions aiming to improve mobility.


Sensors ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 5791-5814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Olivares ◽  
Javier Ramírez ◽  
Juan M. Górriz ◽  
Gonzalo Olivares ◽  
Miguel Damas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document