Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34283080›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

A Comparison of Three Neural Network Approaches for Estimating Joint Angles and Moments from Inertial Measurement Units.

Marion Mundt, William R Johnson, Wolfgang Potthast, Bernd Markert, Ajmal Mian, Jacqueline Alderson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
27.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Transfer Learning With Simulated and Recorded Data Improves Predictions of Lateral Pinch Thumb-Tip Forces.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Marion MundtMinderoo Tech and Policy Lab, UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6624-2895
William R JohnsonHouston Astros Baseball Club, Houston, TX 77001, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6401-4597
Wolfgang PotthastInstitute of Biomechanics and Orthopeadics, German Sport University Cologne, 50933 Cologne, Germany.
Bernd MarkertInstitute of General Mechanics, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7893-6229
Ajmal MianSchool of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia.
Jacqueline AldersonMinderoo Tech and Policy Lab, UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8866-0913
The University of Western Australia · AUGerman Sport University Cologne · DEMajor League Baseball · USRWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of artificial intelligence techniques to wearable sensor data may facilitate accurate analysis outside of controlled laboratory settings-the holy grail for gait clinicians and sports scientists looking to bridge the lab to field divide. Using these techniques, parameters that are difficult to directly measure in-the-wild, may be predicted using surrogate lower resolution inputs. One example is the prediction of joint kinematics and kinetics based on inputs from inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors. Despite increased research, there is a paucity of information examining the most suitable artificial neural network (ANN) for predicting gait kinematics and kinetics from IMUs. This paper compares the performance of three commonly employed ANNs used to predict gait kinematics and kinetics: multilayer perceptron (MLP); long short-term memory (LSTM); and convolutional neural networks (CNN). Overall high correlations between ground truth and predicted kinematic and kinetic data were found across all investigated ANNs. However, the optimal ANN should be based on the prediction task and the intended use-case application. For the prediction of joint angles, CNNs appear favourable, however these ANNs do not show an advantage over an MLP network for the prediction of joint moments. If real-time joint angle and joint moment prediction is desirable an LSTM network should be utilised.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeural Networks, ComputerBiomechanical PhenomenaGaitKineticsjoint kinematicsjoint kineticsmachine learningwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID34283080
PMCPMC8271391
OpenAlexW3175585004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.