ArticleBiomedical engineering online2024
Effect of test duration and sensor location on the reliability of standing balance parameters derived using body-mounted accelerometers.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Phybrata Digital Biomarkers of Age-Related Balance Impairments, Sensory Reweighting, and Intrinsic Fall Risk.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundBalance parameters derived from wearable sensor measurements during postural sway have been shown to be sensitive to experimental variables such as test duration, sensor number, and sensor location that influence the magnitude and frequency-related properties of measured center-of-mass (COM) and center-of-pressure (COP) excursions. In this study, we investigated the effects of test duration, the number of sensors, and sensor location on the reliability of standing balance parameters derived using body-mounted accelerometers.
methodsTwelve volunteers without any prior history of balance disorders were enrolled in the study. They were asked to perform two 2-min quiet standing tests with two different testing conditions (eyes open and eyes closed). Five inertial measurement units (IMUs) were employed to capture postural sway data from each participant. IMUs were attached to the participants' right legs, the second sacral vertebra, sternum, and the left mastoid processes. Balance parameters of interest were calculated for the single head, sternum, and sacrum accelerometers, as well as, a three-sensor combination (leg, sacrum, and sternum). Accelerometer data were used to estimate COP-based and COM-based balance parameters during quiet standing. To examine the effect of test duration and sensor location, each 120-s recording from different sensor locations was segmented into 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-, 70-, 80-, 90-, 100-, and 110-s intervals. For each of these time intervals, time- and frequency-domain balance parameters were calculated for all sensor locations.
resultsMost COM-based and COP-based balance parameters could be derived reliably for clinical applications (Intraclass-Correlation Coefficient, ICC ≥ 0.90) with a minimum test duration of 70 and 110 s, respectively. The exceptions were COP-based parameters obtained using a sacrum-mounted sensor, especially in the eyes-closed condition, which could not be reliably used for clinical applications even with a 120-s test duration.
conclusionsMost standing balance parameters can be reliably measured using a single head- or sternum-mounted sensor within a 120-s test duration. For other sensor locations, the minimum test duration may be longer and may depend on the specific test conditions.
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.