Comparison of a Low-Cost Miniature Inertial Sensor Module and a Fiber-Optic Gyroscope for Clinical Balance and Gait Assessments

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) inertial sensor module is as accurate as fiber-optic gyroscopes when classifying subjects as normal for clinical stance and gait balance tasks. METHODS: Data of ten healthy subjects were recorded simultaneously with a fiber-optic gyroscope (FOG) system of SwayStar™ and a MEMS sensor system incorporated in the Valedo® system. Data from a sequence of clinical balance tasks with different angle and angular velocity ranges were assessed. Paired t-tests were performed to determine significant differences between measurement systems. Cohen's kappa test was used to determine the classification of normal balance control between the two sensor systems when comparing the results to a reference database recorded with the FOG system. Potential cross-talk errors in roll and pitch angles when neglecting yaw axis rotations were evaluated by comparing 2D FOG and 3D MEMS recordings. RESULTS: Statistically significant (α=0.05) differences were found in some balance tasks, for example, “walking eight tandem steps” and various angular measures (p < 0.03). However, these differences were within a few percent (<2.7%) of the reference values. Tasks with high dynamic velocity ranges showed significant differences (p=0.002) between 2D FOG and 3D MEMS roll angles but no difference between 2D FOG and 2D MEMS roll angles. An almost perfect agreement could be obtained for both 2D FOG and 2D MEMS (κ=0.97) and 2D FOG and 3D MEMS measures (κ=0.87) when comparing measurements of all subjects and tasks. CONCLUSION: MEMS motion sensors can be used for assessing balance during clinical stance and gait tasks. MEMS provides measurements comparable to values obtained with a highly accurate FOG. When assessing pitch and roll trunk sway measures without accounting for the effect of yaw, it is recommended to use angle and angular velocity measures for stance, and only angular velocity measures for gait because roll and pitch velocity measurements are not influenced by yaw rotations, and angle errors are low for stance.