Measuring Lower-Limb Kinematics in Walking: Wearable Sensors Achieve Comparable Reliability to Motion Capture Systems and Smartphone Cameras

Marker-based, IMU-based (6-axis IMU), and smartphone-based (OpenCap) motion capture methods are commonly used for motion analysis. The accuracy and reliability of these methods are crucial for applications in rehabilitation and sports training. This study compares the accuracy and inter-operator reliability of inverse kinematics (IK) solutions obtained from these methods, aiming to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate system. For most lower limb inverse kinematics during walking motion, the IMU-based method and OpenCap show comparable accuracy to marker-based methods. The IMU-based method demonstrates higher accuracy in knee angle (5.74 ± 0.80 versus 7.36 ± 3.14 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.020) and ankle angle (7.47 ± 3.91 versus 8.20 ± 3.00 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.011), while OpenCap shows higher accuracy than IMU in pelvis tilt (5.49 ± 2.22 versus 4.28 ± 1.47 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.013), hip adduction (6.10 ± 1.35 versus 4.06 ± 0.78 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.019) and hip rotation (6.09 ± 1.74 versus 4.82 ± 2.30 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.009). The inter-operator reliability of the marker-based method and the IMU-based method shows no significant differences in most motions except for hip adduction (evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient-ICC, 0.910 versus 0.511, with <i>p</i> = 0.016). In conclusion, for measuring lower-limb kinematics, wearable sensors (6-axis IMUs) achieve comparable accuracy and reliability to the gold standard, marker-based motion capture method, with lower equipment requirements and fewer movement constraints during data acquisition.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sensors
Published
2025-05-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/s25092899
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.03

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring Lower-Limb Kinematics in Walking: Wearable Sensors Achieve Comparable Reliability to Motion Capture Systems and Smartphone Cameras

Ziyun Ding, Qingyao Bian, Khalid Alsayed, Jin-Min Kim et al.
4 citations
Sensors
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
8.03
article

Measuring Lower-Limb Kinematics in Walking: Wearable Sensors Achieve Comparable Reliability to Motion Capture Systems and Smartphone Cameras

Ziyun Ding, Qingyao Bian, Khalid Alsayed, Jin-Min Kim, P. Ma
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Marker-based, IMU-based (6-axis IMU), and smartphone-based (OpenCap) motion capture methods are commonly used for motion analysis. The accuracy and reliability of these methods are crucial for applications in rehabilitation and sports training. This study compares the accuracy and inter-operator reliability of inverse kinematics (IK) solutions obtained from these methods, aiming to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate system. For most lower limb inverse kinematics during walking motion, the IMU-based method and OpenCap show comparable accuracy to marker-based methods. The IMU-based method demonstrates higher accuracy in knee angle (5.74 ± 0.80 versus 7.36 ± 3.14 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.020) and ankle angle (7.47 ± 3.91 versus 8.20 ± 3.00 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.011), while OpenCap shows higher accuracy than IMU in pelvis tilt (5.49 ± 2.22 versus 4.28 ± 1.47 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.013), hip adduction (6.10 ± 1.35 versus 4.06 ± 0.78 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.019) and hip rotation (6.09 ± 1.74 versus 4.82 ± 2.30 deg, with <i>p</i> = 0.009). The inter-operator reliability of the marker-based method and the IMU-based method shows no significant differences in most motions except for hip adduction (evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient-ICC, 0.910 versus 0.511, with <i>p</i> = 0.016). In conclusion, for measuring lower-limb kinematics, wearable sensors (6-axis IMUs) achieve comparable accuracy and reliability to the gold standard, marker-based motion capture method, with lower equipment requirements and fewer movement constraints during data acquisition.

SensorsVol. 25(9)
Dyson (United Kingdom) (GB), Imperial College London (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Shoulder Injury and Treatment
8.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.