Evaluating Alternative Inertial Measurement Unit Locations on the Body for Slip Recovery Measures

Abstract

Slips are a leading cause of injury among older adults. Specific slip recovery measures, including slip distance and peak slip speed, have been shown to increase significantly among fallers as compared to non-fallers. Often, slipping kinematics are measured using optoelectronic motion capture (OMC), requiring a laboratory setting and limiting data collection to experimentally-controlled conditions. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) show promise as a portable and wearable form of motion capture. This study had two objectives. First, we investigated whether foot and ankle IMU-derived slip recovery measures could be considered equivalent to the same OMC-derived measures. Second, we investigated if both participant-placed and researcher-placed IMU-derived slip recovery measures could be considered equivalent to the same OMC-derived measures. 30 older adults (ages 65-80) were exposed to a slip while wearing both IMUs and OMC markers. Slip distance and peak slip speed were measured by both systems and compared. Equivalence testing (α = 0.05) showed that IMUs placed on the foot and the ankle were equivalent to OMC in measuring these slip recovery measures. Furthermore, it was shown that researcher and participant-placed IMUs were equivalent (α = 0.05) to OMC in measuring these slip recovery measures. These results confirm that IMUs can be a viable substitute for OMC and have the potential to expand data capture to a real-world environment.