ArticleJournal of applied biomechanics2026
A Functional Sensor-to-Segment Calibration Method Reduces the Effects of Varied Sensor Placement on Estimates of Segment Angular Excursion.
Article in Journal of applied biomechanics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To collect reliable data, it is important to determine how inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor placement affects measurements of segment motion. We aimed to determine the extent to which a functional sensor-to-segment calibration method minimizes the effect of variations in sensor placement on IMU-derived segment angular excursions. Twenty healthy adults walked while wearing 3 IMUs placed on each of the pelvis, thigh, shank, and foot. Differences in estimated segment angular excursions between sensor placements were compared between an assumed sensor-to-segment calibration and 2 versions of a walking-based functional sensor-to-segment calibration. The performance of the functional calibration methods varied. The shank had the greatest difference in root mean square difference between methods (15° for assumed, 1.5° for functional calibration), but the pelvis and thigh did not have significant differences in root mean square difference between assumed and functional calibrations. Mean root mean square differences for angular excursion between sensors were <5° for most comparisons for assumed and functional calibrations. Functional calibration reduced between-subject variance in intersensor differences for all segments. Functional calibration can minimize the effect of variations in IMU sensor placement, but care should be taken to select sensor placements that minimize soft-tissue artifact (eg, anterior thigh).
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.