ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Accuracy and Inter-Subject Variability of Gait Event Detection Methods Based on Optical and Inertial Motion Capture.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gait events (instant of heel strikes and instant of toe-offs) are essential for extracting spatiotemporal parameters and segmenting biological signals (electromyography (EMG) and electroencephalography (EEG)) based on gait cycle. While force platforms and optical motion capture (OMC) are ideal for identifying GE, inertial measurement units (IMUs) are more applicable. This study compared the accuracy and variability from IMU- and OMC-based gait event detection methods compared with gold-standard ground reaction force (GRF) detection. Seventeen healthy adults (31 ± 8 years) walked along a 10 m walkway instrumented with force plates. Foot kinematics were recorded using two retro-reflective markers on each foot and an IMU on the sacrum. Gait events were identified using two OMC-based (OMC1, OMC2) and two IMU-based (IMU1, IMU2) algorithms. Accuracy was evaluated using root-mean-square error (RMSE) relative to GRF, and within-subject variability was assessed using coefficient of variation (CoV). The results from the instant of heel strikes, OMC1 yielded a lower RMSE (14 ms) than IMU1 (50 ms) and IMU2 (61 ms) (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.