ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Inertial Measurement Unit Sensor-to-Segment Calibration Comparison for Sport-Specific Motion Analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motion-Driven Automatic IMU Orientation Calibration viaSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison Between Inertial Sensor and Video-Based Detection of Spatiotemporal Limb Movement Parameters During Equine Swimming.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of 3D ankle kinematics between minimal inertial measurement units configuration and optical motion capture system under diverse walking conditions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Relationship of Knee Abduction Moment to Trunk and Lower Extremity Segment Acceleration during Sport-Specific Movements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be utilized as an alternative to optical motion capture as a method of measuring joint angles. These sensors require functional calibration prior to data collection, known as sensor-to-segment calibration. This study aims to evaluate previously described sensor-to-segment calibration methods to measure joint angle range of motion (ROM) during highly dynamic sports-related movements. Seven calibration methods were selected to compare lower extremity ROM measured using IMUs to an optical motion capture system. The accuracy of ROM measurements for each calibration method varied across joints and sport-specific tasks, with absolute mean differences between IMU measurement and motion capture measurement ranging from <0.1° to 24.1°. Fewer significant differences were observed at the pelvis than at the hip, knee, or ankle across all tasks. For each task, one or more calibration movements demonstrated non-significant differences in ROM for at least nine out of the twelve ROM variables. These results suggest that IMUs may be a viable alternative to optical motion capture for sport-specific lower-extremity ROM measurement, although the sensor-to-segment calibration methods used should be selected based on the specific tasks and variables of interest for a given application.
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.