Validity and Reliability of the Leomo Motion-Tracking Device Based on Inertial Measurement Unit with an Optoelectronic Camera System for Cycling Pedaling Evaluation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- We checked the validity and reliability of a well-known and commonly used IMU in a cycling performance context in the search of a more ecological situation.
- We compared the agreement of the IMU with a gold-standard motion capture system.
- We described the bias of the IMU system, and we give several recommendations to mitigate the lack of agreement between systems to allow coaches to interpret the results in a performance context.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Experimental Designs
2.3. Data Analysis
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Perceived Exertion
3.2. Bland–Altman Plots
3.3. Validity and Reliability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bini, R.; Hume, P.A.; Croft, Y.J.L. Effects of Bicycle Saddle Height on Knee Injury Risk and Cycling Performance. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peveler, W.W.; Shew, B.; Johnson, S.; Palmer, Y.T.G. A Kinematic Comparison of Alterations to Knee and Ankle Angles from Resting Measures to Active Pedaling during a Graded Exercise Protocol. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 3004–3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonda, B.; Sarabon, N.; Li, Y.F.-X. Validity and reliability of different kinematics methods used for bike fitting. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 940–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marin, F.; Fradet, L.; Lepetit, K.; Hansen, C.; Ben Mansour, Y.K. Inertial measurement unit in biomechanics and sport biomechanics: Past, present, future. In Proceedings of the ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, Poitiers, France, 29 June–3 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Camomilla, V.; Bergamini, E.; Fantozzi, S.; Vannozzi, Y.G. Trends Supporting the In-Field Use of Wearable Inertial Sensors for Sport Performance Evaluation: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2018, 18, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van der Kruk, E.; Reijne, Y.M.M. Accuracy of human motion capture systems for sport applications; state-of-the-art review. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 806–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niswander, W.; Wang, W.; Kontson, Y.K. Optimization of IMU Sensor Placement for the Measurement of Lower Limb Joint Kinematics. Sensors 2020, 20, 5993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kobsar, D.; Charlton, J.M.; Tse, C.T.F.; Esculier, J.-F.; Graffos, A.; Krowchuk, N.M.; Thatcher, D.; Hunt, M.A. Validity and reliability of wearable inertial sensors in healthy adult walking: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2020, 17, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasanth, H.; Caban, M.; Keller, U.; Courtine, G.; Ijspeert, A.; Vallery, H.; von Zitzewitz, J. Wearable Sensor-Based Real-Time Gait Detection: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2021, 21, 2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koska, D.; Gaudel, J.; Hein, T.; Maiwald, Y.C. Validation of an inertial measurement unit for the quantification of rearfoot kinematics during running. Gait Posture 2018, 64, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brahms, C.M.; Zhao, Y.; Gerhard, D.; Barden, Y.J.M. Stride length determination during overground running using a single foot-mounted inertial measurement unit. J. Biomech. 2018, 71, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemente, F.; Akyildiz, Z.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Rico-González, Y.M. Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2021, 21, 2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guignard, B.; Rouard, A.; Chollet, D.; Seifert, Y.L. Behavioral Dynamics in Swimming: The Appropriate Use of Inertial Measurement Units. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weygers, I.; Kok, M.; Konings, M.; Hallez, H.; De Vroey, H.; Claeys, Y.K. Inertial Sensor-Based Lower Limb Joint Kinematics: A Methodological Systematic Review. Sensors 2020, 20, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vrints, J.; Koninckx, E.; Van Leemputte, M.; Jonkers, Y.I. The Effect of Saddle Position on Maximal Power Output and Moment Generating Capacity of Lower Limb Muscles during Isokinetic Cycling. J. Appl. Biomech. 2011, 27, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Quesada, J.I.P.; Kerr, Z.Y.; Bertucci, W.M.; Carpes, Y.F.P. The association of bike fitting with injury, comfort, and pain during cycling: An international retrospective survey. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 19, 842–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghislieri, M.; Gastaldi, L.; Pastorelli, S.; Tadano, S.; Agostini, Y.V. Wearable Inertial Sensors to Assess Standing Balance: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2019, 19, 4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robert-Lachaine, X.; Mecheri, H.; Larue, C.; Plamondon, Y.A. Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Engin. Comput. 2017, 55, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leardini, A.; Chiari, A.; Della Croce, U.; Cappozzo, Y.A. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait Posture 2005, 21, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pallarés, J.G.; Morán-Navarro, R.; Ortega, J.F.; Fernández-Elías, V.E.; Mora-Rodriguez, Y.R. Validity and Reliability of Ventilatory and Blood Lactate Thresholds in Well-Trained Cyclists. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borg, G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1990, 16 (Suppl. S1), 55–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doig, G.S.; Simpson, F. Randomization and allocation concealment: A practical guide for researchers. J. Crit. Care 2005, 20, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Ferrer-Roca, V.; García-López, Y.J. Influence of Sex on Current Methods of Adjusting Saddle Height in Indoor Cycling. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Pérez-Soriano, P.; Sanchis-Sanchis, R.; Berenguer-Vidal, R.; García-Gallart, Y.A. Modification of Angular Kinematics and Spatiotemporal Parameters during Running after Central and Peripheral Fatigue. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer-Roca, V.; Roig, A.; Galilea, P.; Garcia-Lopez, J. Influence of Saddle Height on Lower Limb Kinematics in Well-Trained Cyclists. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 3025–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin Bland, J.; Altman, Y.D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Pérez-Soriano, P.; Sanchis-Sanchis, R.; García-Gallart, A.; Berenguer-Vidal, Y.R. Validity and Reliability of an Instrumented Treadmill with an Accelerometry System for Assessment of Spatio-Temporal Parameters and Impact Transmission. Sensors 2021, 21, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shrout, P.E.; Fleiss, Y.J.L. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleiss, J.L.; Enderlein, Y.G. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. Wiley, New York—Chichester—Brislane—Toronto—Singapore 1986, 432 S., £38.35. Biometrical J. 2007, 30, 304. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobson, N.S.; Truax, Y.P. Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J. Consult Clin. Psychol. 1991, 59, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poitras, I.; Dupuis, F.; Bielmann, M.; Campeau-Lecours, A.; Mercier, C.; Bouyer, L.; Roy, J.-S. Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2019, 19, 1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahl, K.D.; Dunford, K.M.; Wilson, S.A.; Turnbull, T.L.; Tashman, Y.S. Wearable sensor validation of sports-related movements for the lower extremity and trunk. Med. Eng. Phys. 2020, 84, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cho, Y.-S.; Jang, S.-H.; Cho, J.-S.; Kim, M.-J.; Lee, H.D.; Lee, S.Y.; Moon, S.-B. Evaluation of Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Gait Analysis Systems. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2018, 42, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bini, R.R.; Diefenthaeler, Y.F. Mechanical work and coordinative pattern of cycling: A literature review. Kinesiology 2009, 41, 25–39. [Google Scholar]
- Chia, L.; Andersen, J.T.; McKay, M.J.; Sullivan, J.; Megalaa, T.; Pappas, Y.E. Evaluating the validity and reliability of inertial measurement units for determining knee and trunk kinematics during athletic landing and cutting movements. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2021, 60, 102589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briff, P.; Lutenberg, A.; Vega, L.R.; Vargas, F.; Patwary, M.; Carrasco, R. WSN clock synchronization by network-coded messages. In Proceedings of the 2017 Eight Argentine Symposium and Conference on Embedded Systems (CASE), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 9–11 August 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Coviello, G.; Avitabile, G.; Florio, A. The Importance of Data Synchronization in Multiboard Acquisition Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 20th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON), Palermo, Italy, 15–18 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample Profile (M ± SD) | |
---|---|
Age, years | 20.0 ± 2.0 |
Weight, kg | 68.1 ± 4.9 |
Height, cm | 179.9 ± 6.0 |
BMI, kg/m2 | 21.1 ± 1.6 |
Fat mass (%) | 9.3 ± 2.9 |
Water mass (%) | 64.3 ± 2.7 |
FTP (W/kg) | 5.14 ± 0.3 |
Rep 1 | Rep 2 | |
---|---|---|
VT1 (M ± SD) | 11.8 ± 2.0 | 11.6 ± 2.1 |
VT2 (M ± SD) | 15.1 ± 2.4 | 15.0 ± 2.4 |
VT1 | Optitrack | Leomo | Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | ICC (95% CI) | Pearson |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Foot AR (Q1) (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 28.35 ± 3.00 * | 30.46 ± 3.27 | −2.11 (−2.53/−1.68) | 0.91 (0.85/0.94) | 0.836 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 28.43 ± 3.15 * | 30.36 ± 3.53 | −1.93 (−2.37/−1.48) | 0.91 (0.86/0.95) | 0.844 |
p value (between reps) | 0.521 | 0.471 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.08 (−0.33/0.17) | 0.10 (−0.175/0.375) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.97 (0.95/0.98) | 0.97 (0.95/0.98) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 0.52 (1.83) | 0.57 (1.86) | |||
MDC (%) | 1.44 | 1.57 | |||
Foot AR (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 43.6 ± 3.5 * | 46.5 ± 4.8 | −3.89 (−4.4/−3.4) | 0.94 (0.90/0.96) | 0.926 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 42.6 ± 3.7 * | 46.3 ± 4.8 | −3.6 (−4.1/−3.2) | 0.95 (0.92/0.97) | 0.937 |
p value (between reps) | 0.796 | 0.142 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.08 (−0.33/0.17) | 0.10 (−0.17/0.37) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.97 (0.95/0.98) | 0.98 (0.97/0.99) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 0.65 (1.46) | 0.60 (1.29) | |||
MDC (%) | 1.73 | 1.67 | |||
Leg AR (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 41.8 ± 4.4 * | 56.7 ± 4.5 | −14.84 (−16.0/−13.6) | 0.52 (0.24/0.70) | 0.353 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 41.5 ± 4.5 * | 56.5 ± 4.6 | −15.01 (−16.1/−13.9) | 0.61 (0.38/0.76) | 0.443 |
p value (between reps) | 0.406 | 0.165 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | 0.28 (−0.39/0.95) | 0.11 (−0.05/0.27) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.88 (0.81/0.93) | 0.995 (0.991/0.997) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 1.50 (3.58) | 0.32 (0.57) | |||
MDC (%) | 4.15 | 0.89 | |||
Pelvic Angle (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 48.55 ± 12.83 * | 61.78 ± 6.47 | −13.06 (−15.69/−10.44) | 0.64 (0.41/0.78) | 0.578 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 48.50 ± 12.01 * | 62.08 ± 7.02 | −13.40 (−15.95/−10.85) | 0.71 (0.50/0.83) | 0.618 |
p value (between reps) | 0.951 | 0.340 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.03 (−0.99/0.93) | −0.30 (−0.92/0.32) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.978 (0.962/0.987) | 0.96 (0.93/0.97) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 1.90 (3.92) | 1.29 (2.10) | |||
MDC (%) | 5.27 | 3.59 |
VT2 | Optitrack | Leomo | Mean Diff (°) (95%CI) | ICC (95%CI) | Pearson |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Foot AR (Q1) (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 28.64 ± 3.27 * | 30.33 ± 3.54 | −1.69 (−2.18/−1.20) | 0.90 (0.84/0.94) | 0.820 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 28.80 ± 3.37 * | 30.04 ± 3.84 | −1.23 (−1.78/−0.69) | 0.88 (0.82/0.93) | 0.803 |
p value (between reps) | 0.219 | 0.123 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.164 (−0.43/0.10) | 0.293 (−0.081/0.667) | |||
ICC (95%CI) | 0.97 (0.95/0.98) | 0.95 (0.92/0.97) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 0.56 (1.95) | 0.78 (2.56) | |||
MDC (%) | 1.54 | 2.15 | |||
Foot AR (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 42.85 ± 3.84 * | 46.73 ± 4.96 | −3.87 (−4.34/−3.41) | 0.95 (0.91/0.97) | 0.931 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 42.89 ± 4.18 * | 46.42 ± 4.47 | −3.53 (−3.87/−3.19) | 0.97 (0.95/0.98) | 0.945 |
p value (between reps) | 0.847 | 0.170 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.03 (−0.37/0.31) | 0.31 (−0.14/0.76) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.96 (0.95/0.98) | 0.96 (0.93/0.97) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 0.69 (1.63) | 10.0 (2.15) | |||
MDC (%) | 1.94 | 2.78 | |||
Leg AR (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 41.16 ± 3.94 * | 56.28 ± 4.82 | −15.12 (−16.18/−14.07) | 0.65 (0.45/0.78) | 0.496 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 41.37 ± 4.40 * | 56.20 ± 5.06 | −14.83 (−15.94/−13.72) | 0.67 (0.48/0.80) | 0.516 |
p value (between reps) | 0.604 | 0.599 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.21 (−1.02/0.60) | 0.08 (−0.23/0.39) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.80 (0.67/0.87) | 0.98 (0.97/0.99) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 1.77 (4.29) | 0.65 (1.15) | |||
MDC (%) | 4.89 | 1.79 | |||
Pelvic Angle (°) | |||||
Rep 1 (°) (M ± SD) | 49.76 ± 11.63 * | 61.58 ± 6.68 | −12.07 (−14.65/−9.47) | 0.61 (0.35/0.77) | 0.509 |
Rep 2 (°) (M ± SD) | 49.29 ± 10.48 * | 61.74 ± 6.79 | −13.18 (−15.55/−10.81) | 0.66 (0.42/0.80) | 0.551 |
p value (between reps) | 0.909 | 0.460 | |||
Mean Diff (°) (95% CI) | −0.06 (−1.18/1.05) | −0.16 (−0.57/0.26) | |||
ICC (95% CI) | 0.96 (0.94/0.98) | 0.98 (0.97/0.99) | |||
SEM (% SEM) | 2.24 (4.49) | 0.89 (1.16) | |||
MDC (%) | 6.2 | 2.48 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Plaza-Bravo, J.M.; Mateo-March, M.; Sanchis-Sanchis, R.; Pérez-Soriano, P.; Zabala, M.; Encarnación-Martínez, A. Validity and Reliability of the Leomo Motion-Tracking Device Based on Inertial Measurement Unit with an Optoelectronic Camera System for Cycling Pedaling Evaluation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8375. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148375
Plaza-Bravo JM, Mateo-March M, Sanchis-Sanchis R, Pérez-Soriano P, Zabala M, Encarnación-Martínez A. Validity and Reliability of the Leomo Motion-Tracking Device Based on Inertial Measurement Unit with an Optoelectronic Camera System for Cycling Pedaling Evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8375. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148375
Chicago/Turabian StylePlaza-Bravo, José Manuel, Manuel Mateo-March, Roberto Sanchis-Sanchis, Pedro Pérez-Soriano, Mikel Zabala, and Alberto Encarnación-Martínez. 2022. "Validity and Reliability of the Leomo Motion-Tracking Device Based on Inertial Measurement Unit with an Optoelectronic Camera System for Cycling Pedaling Evaluation" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8375. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148375