ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Estimation of Ground Contact Time with Inertial Sensors from the Upper Arm and the Upper Back.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate quantification of steps from multiple smartphone positions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Validity of a Three-Dimensional Motion Capture System and the Garmin Running Dynamics Pod in Connection with an Assessment of Ground Contact Time While Running in Place.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ground contact time (GCT) is one of the most relevant factors when assessing running performance in sports practice. In recent years, inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been widely used to automatically evaluate GCT, since they can be used in field conditions and are friendly and easy to wear devices. In this paper we describe the results of a systematic search, using the Web of Science, to assess what reliable options are available to GCT estimation using inertial sensors. Our analysis reveals that estimation of GCT from the upper body (upper back and upper arm) has rarely been addressed. Proper estimation of GCT from these locations could permit an extension of the analysis of running performance to the public, where users, especially vocational runners, usually wear pockets that are ideal to hold sensing devices fitted with inertial sensors (or even using their own cell phones for that purpose). Therefore, in the second part of the paper, an experimental study is described. Six subjects, both amateur and semi-elite runners, were recruited for the experiments, and ran on a treadmill at different paces to estimate GCT from inertial sensors placed at the foot (for validation purposes), the upper arm, and upper back. Initial and final foot contact events were identified in these signals to estimate the GCT per step, and compared to times estimated from an optical MOCAP (Optitrack), used as the ground truth. We found an average error in GCT estimation of 0.01 s in absolute value using the foot and the upper back IMU, and of 0.05 s using the upper arm IMU. Limits of agreement (LoA, 1.96 times the standard deviation) were [-0.01 s, 0.04 s], [-0.04 s, 0.02 s], and [0.0 s, 0.1 s] using the sensors on the foot, the upper back, and the upper arm, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.