Department of Neuromotor Behavior and Exercise, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Horstmarer Landweg 62B, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Institute for Biomechanics, Clinic Lindenplatz, Weslarner Str. 29, 59505 Bad Sassendorf, Germany; Department of Exercise & Health, University of Paderborn, Warburger Straße 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany.
Gait Posture. 2021 Mar;85:55-64. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.01.013. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
Measuring gait function has become an essential tool in the assessment of mobility in aging populations for both, clinicians and researchers. A variety of systems exist that assess gait parameters such as gait cycle time, gait speed or duration of relative gait phases. Due to different measurement principles such as inertial or pressure sensors, accurate detection of spatiotemporal events may vary between systems.
To compare the absolute agreement and consistency in spatiotemporal gait parameters among five different clinical gait analysis systems using different sensor technologies.
We compared two devices using inertial sensors (GaitUp & Mobility Lab), two devices using pressure sensor systems (GAITRite & Zebris) as well as one optical system (OptoGait). Twelve older adults walked at self-selected speed through a walkway integrating all of the above systems. Basic spatiotemporal parameters (gait cycle time, cadence, gait speed and stride length) as well as measures of relative phase (stance phase, swing phase, double stance phase, single limb support) were extracted from all systems. We used Intraclass Correlation Coefficients as measures of agreement and consistency.
High agreement and consistency between all systems was found for basic spatiotemporal parameters, whereas parameters of relative phase showed poorer agreement and consistency. Overground measurement (GAITRite & OptoGait) showed generally higher agreement with each other as compared to inertial sensor-based systems.
Our results indicate that accurate detection of both, the heel-strike and toe-off event are crucial for reliable results. Systematic errors in the detection of one or both events may only have a small impact on basic spatiotemporal outcomes as errors remain consistent from step to step. Relative phase parameters on the other hand may be affected to a much larger extent as these differences lead to a systematic increase or reduction of relative phase durations.
测量步态功能已成为评估老龄化人口移动能力的重要工具，无论是临床医生还是研究人员。有多种系统可以评估步态参数，例如步态周期时间、步态速度或相对步态阶段的持续时间。由于测量原理不同，例如惯性或压力传感器，因此系统之间可能会存在时空事件的准确检测差异。
使用不同的传感器技术，比较五种不同临床步态分析系统的时空步态参数的绝对一致性和稳定性。
我们比较了两种使用惯性传感器的设备（GaitUp 和 Mobility Lab）、两种使用压力传感器系统的设备（GAITRite 和 Zebris）以及一种光学系统（OptoGait）。十二名老年人以自己选择的速度穿过集成了所有上述系统的步道行走。从所有系统中提取基本时空参数（步态周期时间、步频、步态速度和步长）以及相对相位测量值（支撑相、摆动相、双支撑相、单支撑相）。我们使用组内相关系数作为一致性和稳定性的衡量标准。
所有系统的基本时空参数都具有高度的一致性和稳定性，而相对相位参数的一致性和稳定性较差。与基于惯性传感器的系统相比，地面测量（GAITRite 和 OptoGait）通常彼此之间具有更高的一致性。
我们的结果表明，准确检测足跟触地和足趾离地事件对于可靠的结果至关重要。一个或两个事件的检测系统误差只会对基本时空结果产生较小的影响，因为误差在每一步中保持一致。另一方面，相对相位参数可能会受到更大的影响，因为这些差异会导致相对相位持续时间的系统增加或减少。
