Gait detection in children with and without hemiplegia using single-axis wearable gyroscopes

Nicole Abaid, Paolo Cappa, Eduardo Palermo, Maurizio Petrarca, Maurizio Porfiri, Nicole Abaid, Paolo Cappa, Eduardo Palermo, Maurizio Petrarca, Maurizio Porfiri

Abstract

In this work, we develop a novel gait phase detection algorithm based on a hidden Markov model, which uses data from foot-mounted single-axis gyroscopes as input. We explore whether the proposed gait detection algorithm can generate equivalent results as a reference signal provided by force sensitive resistors (FSRs) for typically developing children (TD) and children with hemiplegia (HC). We find that the algorithm faithfully reproduces reference results in terms of high values of sensitivity and specificity with respect to FSR signals. In addition, the algorithm distinguishes between TD and HC and is able to assess the level of gait ability in patients. Finally, we show that the algorithm can be adapted to enable real-time processing with high accuracy. Due to the small, inexpensive nature of gyroscopes utilized in this study and the ease of implementation of the developed algorithm, this work finds application in the on-going development of active orthoses designed for therapy and locomotion in children with gait pathologies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Schematic of positions for IMU…
Figure 1. Schematic of positions for IMU and FSRs.
a) An IMU is attached to the shoe and φ measures the angular position in the sagittal plane with respect to resting position and b) FSRs are placed on the sole of the foot at the heel and the first and fifth metatarsals.
Figure 2. Specificity and sensitivity of A…
Figure 2. Specificity and sensitivity of AOL-detected gait phases, with FSR reference, for typically developing children and children with hemiplegia.
The three populations are the combined legs of typically developing children (TD), the more affected legs of the children with hemiplegia (HC), and the less affected legs of the children with hemiplegia. Performance measures are given as mean ± one standard error over each population. For patients with equally affected sides, the right is taken as the more affected leg.
Figure 3. Percent time spent in each…
Figure 3. Percent time spent in each gait phase by typically developing children and children with hemiplegia.
The three populations are the combined legs of typically developing children (TD), the more affected legs of the children with hemiplegia (HC), and the less affected legs of the children with hemiplegia. Results are given as mean ± one standard error over each population, detected by AOL. For patients with equally affected sides, the right is taken as the more affected leg. Gait phases in which the three populations spend statistically significant different times are starred (ANOVA, p<0.05).
Figure 4. Specificity and sensitivity of A…
Figure 4. Specificity and sensitivity of ART-detected gait phases, with AOL reference, for typically developing children and children with hemiplegia.
The three populations are the combined legs of typically developing children (TD), the more affected legs of the children with hemiplegia (HC), and the less affected legs of the children with hemiplegia. Performance measures are given as mean ± one standard error over each population. For patients with equally affected sides, the right is taken as the more affected leg.

References

    1. Pastor PN, Reuben CA, Loeb M (2009) Functional Difficulties Among School-Aged Children: United States, 2001–2007. Hyattsville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services.
    1. Alexander NB, Goldberg A (2005) Gait disorders: Search for multiple causes. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 72: 586–594.
    1. Zwick EB, Leistritz L, Milleit B, Saraph V, Zwick G, et al. (2004) Classification of equinus in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy- discrimination between dynamic tightness and fixed contracture. Gait & Posture 20: 273–279.
    1. Rushton DN (2003) Functional electrical stimulation and rehabilitation–an hypothesis. Medical Engineering & Physics 25: 75–78.
    1. Durham S, Eve L, Stevens C, Ewins D (2004) Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation on asymmetries in gait of children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Physiotherapy 90: 82–90.
    1. Banala SK, Kim SH, Agrawal SK, Scholz JP (2009) Robot assisted gait training with active leg exoskeleton (ALEX). IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 17: 2–8.
    1. Andersen JB, Sinkjaer T (2003) Mobile ankle and knee perturbator. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 50: 1208–1211.
    1. Dollar AM (2008) Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24: 144–158.
    1. Lee H, Ho P, Rastgaar MA, Krebs HI, Hogan N (2011) Multivariable static ankle mechanical impedance with relaxed muscles. Journal of Biomechanics 44: 1901–1908.
    1. Lopez-Meyer P, Fulk GD, Sazonov ES (2011) Automatic detection of temporal gait parameters in poststroke individuals. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 15: 594–601.
    1. Skelly MM, Chizeck HJ (2001) Real-time gait event detection for paraplegic FES walking. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 9: 59–68.
    1. Gonzalez RC, Lopez AM, Rodriguez-Uria J, Alvarez D, Alvarez JC (2010) Real-time gait event detection for normal subjects from lower trunk accelerations. Gait & Posture 31: 322–325.
    1. Chen M, Huang B, Xu YS (2008) Intelligent shoes for abnormal gait detection. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; May 19–23; Pasadena, CA, USA. 2019–2024.
    1. Hanlon M, Anderson R (2009) Real-time gait event detection using wearable sensors. Gait & Posture 30: 523–527.
    1. Lee JK, Park EJ (2011) Quasi real-time gait event detection using shank-attached gyroscopes. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 49: 707–712.
    1. Smith BT, Coiro DJ, Finson R, Betz RR, McCarthy J (2002) Evaluation of force-sensing resistors for gait event detection to trigger electrical stimulation to improve walking in the child with cerebral palsy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 10: 22–29.
    1. Bamberg SJ, Benbasat AY, Scarborough DM, Krebs DE, Paradiso JA (2008) Gait analysis using a shoe-integrated wireless sensor system. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 12: 413–423.
    1. Klucken J, Barth J, Kugler P, Schlachetzki J, Henze T, et al. (2013) Unbiased and mobile gait analysis detects motor impairment in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 8: e56956.
    1. McGregor SJ, Busa MA, Skufca J, Yaggie JA, Bollt EM (2009) Control entropy identifies differential changes in complexity of walking and running gait patterns with increasing speed in highly trained runners. Chaos 19: 026109.
    1. Aminian K, Najafi B, Bula C, Leyvraz PF, Robert P (2002) Spatio-temporal parameters of gait measured by an ambulatory system using miniature gyroscopes. Journal of Biomechanics 35: 689–699.
    1. Bae J, Tomizuka M (2011) Gait phase analysis based on a hidden Markov model. Mechatronics 21: 961–970.
    1. Dalton A, Khalil H, Busse M, Rosser A, van Deursen R, et al. (2013) Analysis of gait and balance through a single triaxial accelerometer in presymptomatic and symptomatic Huntington’s disease. Gait & Posture 37: 49–54.
    1. Mannini A, Sabatini AM (2012) Gait phase detection and discrimination between walking–jogging activities using hidden Markov models applied to foot motion data from a gyroscope. Gait & Posture 36: 657–661.
    1. Hansen M, Haugland MK, Sinkjaer A (2004) Evaluating robustness of gait event detection based on machine learning and natural sensors. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 12: 81–88.
    1. Venkat I, De Wilde P (2011) Robust gait recognition by learning and exploiting sub-gait characteristics. International Journal of Computer Vision 91: 7–23.
    1. Rabiner LR (1989) A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 77: 257–286.
    1. Pfau T, Ferrari M, Parsons K, Wilson A (2008) A hidden Markov model-based stride segmentation technique applied to equine inertial sensor trunk movement data. Journal of Biomechanics 41: 216–220.
    1. Wilson AD, Bobick AF (1999) Parametric hidden Markov models for gesture recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21: 884–900.
    1. Rueterbories J, Spaich EG, Andersen OK (2013) Characterization of gait pattern by 3D angular accelerations in hemiparetic and healthy gait. Gait & Posture 37: 183–189.
    1. Panahandeh G, Mohammadiha N, Leijon A, Handel P (2013) Continuous hidden Markov model for pedestrian activity classification and gait analysis. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 62: 1073–1083.
    1. Palisano RJ, Hanna SE, Rosenbaum PL, Russell DJ, Walter SD, et al. (2000) Validation of a model of gross motor function for children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy 80: 974–985.
    1. Mannini A, Sabatini AM (2011) A hidden Markov model-based technique for gait segmentation using a foot-mounted gyroscope. International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; Aug. 30 - Sept. 3 4369–4373.
    1. Mickey RM, Dunn OJ, Clark VA (2004) Applied Statistics: Analysis of Variance and Regression. New York: Wiley.
    1. Chagdes JR, Rietdyk S, Haddad JM, Zelaznik HN, Raman A, et al. (2009) Multiple timescales in postural dynamics associated with vision and a secondary task are revealed by wavelet analysis. Experimental Brain Research 197: 297–310.
    1. Holt RL, Mikati MA (2011) Care for child development: basic science rationale and effects of interventions. Pediatric Neurology 44: 239–253.
    1. Spittle AJ, Orton J, Doyle LW, Boyd R (2007) Early developmental intervention programs post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairments in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Apr 18: CD005495.
    1. Petrarca M, Rossi S, Bollea L, Cappa P, Castelli E (2011) Patient-centered rehabilitation, three years of gait recovery in a child affected by hemiplegia:. case report. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 47: 35–47.
    1. Mannini A, Sabatini AM (2010) Machine learning methods for classifying human physical activity from on-body accelerometers. Sensors 10: 1154–1175.
    1. Sipahi R, Niculescu SI, Abdallah CT, Michiels W, Gu KQ (2011) Stability and stabilization of systems with time delay: Limitations and opportunities. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 31: 38–65.
    1. Ceccato JC, de Seze M, Azevedo C, Cazalets JR (2009) Comparison of trunk activity during gait initiation and walking in humans. PLoS One 4: e8193.
    1. Xu Y, Choi J, Reeves NP, Cholewicki J (2010) Optimal control of the spine system. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 132: 051004.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj