A principal component analysis (PCA) based assessment of the gait performance

Marija Gavrilović; Dejan B. Popović

doi:10.1515/bmt-2020-0307

Article

A principal component analysis (PCA) based assessment of the gait performance

Marija Gavrilović and Dejan B. Popović

Published/Copyright: July 12, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik Volume 66 Issue 5

Abstract

The gait assessment is instrumental for evaluating the efficiency of rehabilitation of persons with a motor impairment of the lower extremities. The protocol for quantifying the gait performance needs to be simple and easy to implement; therefore, a wearable system and user-friendly computer program are preferable. We used the Gait Master (instrumented insoles) with the industrial quality ground reaction forces (GRF) sensors and 6D inertial measurement units (IMU). WiFi transmitted 10 signals from the GRF sensors and 12 signals from the accelerometers and gyroscopes to the host computer. The clinician was following in real-time the acquired data to be assured that the WiFi operated correctly. We developed a method that uses principal component analysis (PCA) to provide a clinician with easy to interpret cyclograms showing the difference between the recorded and healthy-like gait performance. The cyclograms formed by the first two principal components in the PCA space show the step-to-step reproducibility. We suggest that a cyclogram and its orientation to the coordinate system PC1 vs. PC2 allow a simple assessment of the gait. We show results for six healthy persons and five patients with hemiplegia.

Keywords: cyclogram; gait; ground reaction force; inertial measurement unit; PCA; stroke

Corresponding author: Marija Gavrilović, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, E-mail: marijapetrovic48@yahoo.com

Funding source: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia

Award Identifier / Grant number: F-147

Acknowledgment

We thank Prof. Dr. Ljubica Konstantinović and Suzana Dedijer-Dujović, M.D. from the Clinic for rehabilitation “Dr. Miroslav Zotović,” Belgrade for providing gait data for patients who participated in the FES therapy (MOTIMOVE electronic stimulator, https://www.3-x-f.com/) augmenting the pedaling (OMEGO^® Plus, https://tyromotion.com/en/products/omegoplus/).

Research funding: This research work was partly supported by project F-137 from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The ethics committee approved the study’s protocol of the Clinic for rehabilitation “Dr. Miroslav Zotović,” Belgrade, where the gait assessment was performed. All subjects signed informed consent before the assessment session. The procedure was completely noninvasive.

References

1. Cappozzo, A. Gait analysis methodology. Hum Mov Sci 1984;3:27–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(84)90004-6.Search in Google Scholar

2. Lord, SE, Halligan, PW, Wade, DT. Visual gait analysis: the development of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil 1998;12:107–19. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921598666182531.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Toro, B, Nester, C, Farren, P. A review of observational gait assessment in clinical practice. Physiother Theory Pract 2003;19:137–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593980307964.Search in Google Scholar

4. Krebs, DE, Edelstein, JE, Fishman, S. Reliability of observational kinematic gait analysis. Phys Ther 1985;65:1027–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/65.7.1027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Perry, J, Garrett, M, Gronley, JK, Mulroy, SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995;26:982–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.26.6.982.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Muro-De-La-Herran, A, Garcia-Zapirain, B, Mendez-Zorrilla, A. Gait analysis methods: an overview of wearable and non-wearable systems, highlighting clinical applications. Sensors 2014;14:3362–94. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140203362.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. do Carmo Vilas-Boas, M, Choupina, HM, Rocha, AP, Fernandes, JM, Cunha, JP. Full-body motion assessment: concurrent validation of two body tracking depth sensors versus a gold standard system during gait. J Biomech 2019;87:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.03.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Yang, Y, Pu, F, Li, Y, Li, S, Fan, Y, Li, D. Reliability and validity of Kinect RGB-D sensor for assessing standing balance. IEEE Sensor J 2014;14:1633–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2013.2296509.Search in Google Scholar

9. Rinehart, NJ, Tonge, BJ, Iansek, R, McGinley, J, Brereton, AV, Enticott, PG, et al.. Gait function in newly diagnosed children with autism: cerebellar and basal ganglia related motor disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006;48:819–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162206001769.Search in Google Scholar

10. Available from: http://www.treadmetrix.com/ [Accessed 1 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

11. Winter, DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2009.10.1002/9780470549148Search in Google Scholar

12. Benson, LC, Clermont, CA, Bošnjak, E, Ferber, R. The use of wearable devices for walking and running gait analysis outside of the lab: a systematic review. Gait Posture 2018;63:124–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.04.047.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Available from: https://www.novel.de/products/pedar/ [Accessed 1 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

14. Queen, R, Dickerson, L, Ranganathan, S, Schmitt, D. A novel method for measuring asymmetry in kinematic and kinetic variables: the normalized symmetry index. J Biomech 2020;99:109531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.109531.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Luggage, V, Kaufman, K. Dynamic stability margin using a marker based system and tekscan: a comparison of four gait conditions. Gait Posture 2014;40:252–4.10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.12.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Horse, B, Dlapka, R, Iber, M, Gorgas, AM, Kinsella, A, Gradl, C, et al.. SONIGait: a wireless instrumented insole device for real-time sonification of gait. J Multimodal User Interfaces 2016;10:195–206.10.1007/s12193-016-0216-9Search in Google Scholar

17. Available from: https://www.moticon.de/ [Accessed 1 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

18. Stöggl, T, Martiner, A. Validation of Moticon’s OpenGL sensor insoles during gait, jumps, balance, and cross-country skiing specific imitation movements. J Sports Sci 2017;35:196–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1161205.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

19. Ferber, R, Webber, T, Everett, B, Groenland, M. Validation of plantar pressure measurements for a novel in-shoe plantar sensory replacement unit. J diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1167–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700535.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Hurkmans, HL, Bussmann, JB, Selles, RW, Horemans, HL, Benda, E, Stam, HJ, et al.. Validity of the Pedar Mobile system for vertical force measurement during a seven-hour period. J Biomech 2006;39:110–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.10.028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Mavor, MP, Ross, GB, Clouthier, AL, Karakolis, T, Graham, RB. Validation of an IMU suit for military-based tasks. Sensors 2020;20:4280. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20154280.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Available from: www.rehabshop.rs [Accessed 1 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

23. Balasubramanian, CK, Bowden, MG, Neptune, RR, Kautz, SA. Relationship between step length asymmetry and walking performance in subjects with chronic hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:43–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Kojović, J, Miljković, N, Janković, MM, Popović, DB. Recovery of motor function after stroke: a polymyography-based analysis. J Neurosci Methods 2011;194:321–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.10.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Hausdorff, JM. Gait variability: methods, modeling and meaning. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2005;2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-2-19.Search in Google Scholar

26. Gabell, A, Nayak, USL. The effect of age on variability in gait. J Gerontol 1984;39:662–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/39.6.662.Search in Google Scholar

27. Balasubramanian, CK, Neptune, RR, Kautz, SA. Variability in spatiotemporal step characteristics and its relationship to walking performance post-stroke. Gait Posture 2009;29:408–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.10.061.Search in Google Scholar

28. Milovanović, I, Popović, DB. Principal component analysis of gait kinematics data in acute and chronic stroke patients. Comput Math Methods Med 2012;2012:649743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/649743.Search in Google Scholar

29. Milovanović, I. Synergy patterns of stroke subjects while walking: implications for control of FES assistive devices [Ph.D. thesis]. Belgrade, Serbia: Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade; 2013. Available from: bmit.etf.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/radovi/doktorati/Doktorat-Ivana-Milovanovic.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

30. Shapiro, SS, Wilk, MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965;52:591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.Search in Google Scholar

31. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Breakthroughs in statistics. New York, NY: Springer; 1992:196–202 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_16.Search in Google Scholar

32. Ceron, JD, Martindale, CF, López, M, Kluge, F, Eskofier, BM. Indoor trajectory reconstruction of walking, jogging, and running activities based on a foot-mounted inertial pedestrian dead-reckoning system. Sensors 2020;20:651. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20030651.Search in Google Scholar

33. Joshi, D, Anand, S. Cyclogram and cross-correlation: a comparative study to quantify gait coordination in mental state. J Biomed Sci Eng 2010;3:322–26. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbise.2010.33044.Search in Google Scholar

34. Viteckova, S, Kutilek, P, Krupicka, R, Szabo, Z, Hoskovcova, M, Ruzicka, E. A new approach to gait variability quantification using cyclograms. In: Proc. of the 11th intern. joint conference on biomedical engineering systems and technologies (BIOSTEC 2018). Biosignals; 2018, vol 4:127–32 pp. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006546601270132.Search in Google Scholar

35. Popović, MB, Popović, DB. A new approach to reaching control for tetraplegic subjects. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1994;4:242–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/1050-6411(94)90011-6.Search in Google Scholar

36. Popović, DB, Popović, MB. Tuning of a nonanalytical hierarchical control system for reaching with FES. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1998;45:203–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.661268.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Shanahan, CJ, Boonstra, F, Cofré Lizama, LE, Strik, M, Moffat, BA, Khan, F, et al.. Technologies for advanced gait and balance assessments in people with multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol 2018;8:708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00708.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

38. Vitorio, R, Stuart, S, Gobbi, LT, Rochester, L, Alcock, L, Pantall, A. Reduced gait variability and enhanced brain activity in older adults with auditory cues: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair 2018;32:976–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968318805159.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2020-11-15

Accepted: 2021-06-23

Published Online: 2021-07-12

Published in Print: 2021-10-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2020-0307

Keywords for this article

cyclogram; gait; ground reaction force; inertial measurement unit; PCA; stroke