Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Bertalan Lajos 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary.
Med Eng Phys. 2010 Jul;32(6):662-7. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.02.012. Epub 2010 Mar 11.
This study involved a comparison of kinematics-based and ground reaction force (GRF)-based event detection methods. The objectives were (1) to assess the difference between the determination of gait events from GRF-based and kinematic/ultrasound-based techniques and (2) to determine the effects of gait speed on the agreement between the two techniques. At combined speeds, the average of the true difference was 2.6+/-2.8 ms for heel strike and -1.3+/-2.4 ms for toe-off identification. A positive value indicated that GRF-based identification occurred before kinematics-based identification. The average of the true difference was -3.9+/-3.5 ms for the duration of stance; thus, the duration of stance as determined by the kinematics-based technique was shorter than that determined by GFR-based detection. Strong correlations (range 0.948-0.974) were found at all (slow, moderate, and fast) gait speeds. Near unity of slope of the linear regression line (range 0.955-1.008) was identified for the duration of stance between the two methods. Our results suggest that the agreement between the two event detection methods depended on gait speed, but the differences were small. The data determined using kinematic/ultrasound-based and GRF-based methods were comparable in healthy participants.
本研究比较了基于运动学和地面反力(GRF)的事件检测方法。目的是:(1)评估基于 GRF 和运动学/超声技术确定步态事件的差异;(2)确定步态速度对两种技术之间一致性的影响。在组合速度下,足跟触地和足趾离地的真实差异的平均值分别为 2.6+/-2.8ms 和-1.3+/-2.4ms。正值表示基于 GRF 的识别先于基于运动学的识别。支撑期的真实差异平均值为-3.9+/-3.5ms;因此,基于运动学技术确定的支撑期持续时间短于基于 GRF 检测的持续时间。在所有(慢、中、快)步态速度下均发现了很强的相关性(范围 0.948-0.974)。在两种方法之间的支撑期持续时间上,线性回归线的斜率非常接近 1(范围 0.955-1.008)。我们的结果表明,两种事件检测方法之间的一致性取决于步态速度,但差异很小。基于运动学/超声和 GRF 方法确定的数据在健康参与者中是可比的。