A comparison of the conventional pig marker method versus a cluster‐based model when recording gait kinematics in trans‐tibial prosthesis users and the implications for future imu gait analysis

• Main Authors: Manunchaya Samala, Philip Rowe, Jutima Rattanakoch, Gary Guerra
• Other Authors: University of Strathclyde
• Format: Article
• Published: 2020
• Subjects: Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Chemistry; Engineering; Physics and Astronomy
• Online Access: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/53578
• Institution: Mahidol University

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Validation testing is a necessary step for inertial measurement unit (IMU) motion analysis for research and clinical use. Optical tracking systems utilize marker models which must be precise in measurement and mitigate skin artifacts. Prosthesis wearers present challenges to optical tracking marker model choice. Seven participants were recruited and underwent simultaneous motion capture from two marker sets; Plug in Gait (PiG) and the Strathclyde Cluster Model (SCM). Variability of joint kinematics within and between subjects was evaluated. Variability was higher for PiG than SCM for all parameters. The within‐subjects variability as reported by the average standard deviation (SD), was below 5.6° for all rotations of the hip on the prosthesis side for all participants for both methods, with an average of 2.1° for PiG and 2.5° for SCM. Statistically significant differences in joint parameters caused by a change in the protocol were evident in the sagittal plane (p < 0.05) on the amputated side. Trans‐tibial gait analysis was best achieved by use of the SCM. The SCM protocol appeared to provide kinematic measurements with a smaller variability than that of the PiG. Validation studies for prosthesis wearer populations must reconsider the marker protocol for gold standard comparisons with IMUs.