[ad_1]
Each participant was measured five times using IMU and OMC systems, respectively, to verify the repeatability. The IMU system showed good repeatability using generalized linear mixture model for the stance phase (P = 0.75, 0.18, L-R), swing phase (P = 0.75, 0.51, L-R), velocity (P = 0.12, 0.41, L-R), cadence (P = 0.83, 0.64, L-R), stride length (P = 0.72, 0.81, L-R) (Table 1). OMC system also showed good repeatability using the generalized linear mixture model, in stance phase (P = 0.24, 0.56, L-R), swing phase (P = 0.24, 0.56, L-R), velocity (P = 0.78, 0.19, L-R), cadence (P = 0.45, 0.91, L-R), stride length (P = 0.65, 0.33, L-R) (Table 1).
The comparison of gait spatiotemporal parameters in the IMU and OMC systems were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test, as shown in Table 2. The measurements of Spatio-temporal parameters, including the stance phase (P = 0.78, 0.13, L-R), swing phase (P = 0.78, 0.13, L-R), velocity (P = 0.14, 0.13, L-R), cadence (P = 0.53, 0.22, L-R), stride length (P = 0.05, 0.19, L-R), by the IMU system and OMC system were similar. Regarding the ICC of the IMU systems compared with the OMC system, ICC was used to evaluate the correlation of the IMU system relative to the OMC system as shown in Table 3. The intra-rater reliability showed an excellent correlation for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity and cadence (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC > 0.9) for both systems. However, the correlation of stride length was poor (ICC = 0.36, P = 0.34, L) to medium (ICC = 0.56, P = 0.22, R).
The mean differences between the IMU and OMC systems for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity, cadence step and stride length left were 0.81, -0.81, -2.0, 0.6, and − 3.8, respectively. In the Bland–Altman plots, the limit of agreement for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity, cadence step and stride length left were 2.59 to -0.98, 0.98 to -2.59, 5.3 to -9.2, 7.0 to -5.8, and 8.1 to -15.7, respectively. All Spatio-temporal parameters were within a 95% limit of agreement from the means of differences between the IMU and OMC systems (Fig. 2).
Bland–Altman plots comparing IMU system and OMC system results for (A) Stance Phase, (B) Swing Phase, (C) Velocity, (D) Cadence Step, and (E) Stride Length left. Bias (solid line) and limits of agreement are (dashed line) shown for each variable. The mean score is plotted on the x-axis, and the difference between the two devices is plotted on the y-axis (mean difference ± 1.96 SD)
The mean differences between the IMU and OMC systems for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity, cadence step and stride length right were 0.3, -0.3, -2.4, -1.9, and − 3.4, respectively. In the Bland–Altman plots, the limit of agreement for the stance phase, swing phase, velocity, cadence step and stride length right were 2.7 to -2.2, 2.2 to -2.7, 6.3 to -11.1, 6.4 to -10.2, and 9.4 to -16.3, respectively. All Spatio-temporal parameters were within a 95% limit of agreement from the means of differences between the IMU and OMC systems (Fig. 3).
Bland–Altman plots comparing IMU system and OMC system results for (A) Stance Phase, (B) Swing Phase, (C) Velocity, (D) Cadence Step, and (E) Stride Length right. Bias (solid line) and limits of agreement are (dashed line) shown for each variable. The mean score is plotted on the x-axis, and the difference between the two devices is plotted on the y-axis (mean difference ± 1.96 SD)
The data acquisition efficiency during gait in the IMU system and OMC system iis shown in Table 4. For the IMU system, the average gait cycle in 20 min was 282, with an average time of 1.78 s for 1 gait cycle. For the OMC system, the average gait cycle in 20 min was 10, with an average time of 360 s for 1 gait cycle.
[ad_2]
Source link
