Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40218786›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Optimization of MIMU Mounting Position on Shank in Posture Estimation Considering Muscle Protuberance.

Shun Kanega, Yoshihiro Muraoka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Shun KanegaFaculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa 359-1192, Japan.ORCID 0009-0007-6831-8372
Yoshihiro MuraokaFaculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa 359-1192, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1014-4492

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 23KJ2046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The influence of the mounting position of a magnetic-inertial measurement unit (MIMU) on the accuracy of posture estimation for a shank has not been extensively studied and remains unknown. In this study, we conducted comparative experiments using three MIMU positions: the lateral and frontal positions, which are commonly used, and the medial tibial position, which is less affected by muscle protuberance, considering the anatomical structure of the body. To determine the optimal MIMU mounting position on the shank, we repeatedly performed plantar-dorsiflexion and relaxation of the ankle joint in a chair-sitting position and examined the effect of muscle contraction on the posture of the MIMU (Experiment 1). We also performed posture estimation during gait and compared the three-dimensional shank posture measured by the MIMU and optical motion capture to evaluate the estimation accuracy for each mounting position (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, the orientation change at the medial tibia was significantly smaller than that at the other positions, showing an 80% reduction compared with the anterior tibia during dorsiflexion. In Experiment 2, the medial tibia achieved the highest estimation accuracy, showing a 13% lower RMSE than that of the anterior position. The results of these two experiments suggest that the medial tibia is the optimal position on the shank, as the posture estimation accuracy was the highest when the MIMU was mounted on the medial tibia, where there was no muscle under the mounting surface. Moreover, the posture estimation accuracy was less affected by muscle protuberance under these conditions.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalPostureAdultAnkle JointBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGaitHumansMaleTibiaYoung AdultgaitIMUMIMUmuscle contractionoptimal positionpacemakershanksoft tissue artifact

Identifiers

PMID40218786
PMCPMC11991399

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.