Information from complementary and redundant sensors are often combined within sensor fusion algorithms to obtain a single accurate observation of the system at hand. However, measurements from each sensor are characterized by uncertainties. When multiple data are fused, it is often unclear how all these uncertainties interact and influence the overall performance of the sensor fusion algorithm. To address this issue, a benchmarking procedure is presented, where simulated and real data are combined in different scenarios in order to quantify how each sensor’s uncertainties influence the accuracy of the final result. The proposed procedure was applied to the estimation of the pelvis orientation using a waist-worn magnetic-inertial measurement unit. Ground-truth data were obtained from a stereophotogrammetric system and used to obtain simulated data. Two Kalman-based sensor fusion algorithms were submitted to the proposed benchmarking procedure. For the considered application, gyroscope uncertainties proved to be the main error source in orientation estimation accuracy for both tested algorithms. Moreover, although different performances were obtained using simulated data, these differences became negligible when real data were considered. The outcome of this evaluation may be useful both to improve the design of new sensor fusion methods and to drive the algorithm tuning process. Full article

In human movement analysis, 3D body segment orientation can be obtained through the numerical integration of gyroscope signals. These signals, however, are affected by errors that, for the case of micro-electro-mechanical systems, are mainly due to: constant bias, scale factor, white noise, and bias instability. The aim of this study is to assess how the orientation estimation accuracy is affected by each of these disturbances, and whether it is influenced by the angular velocity magnitude and 3D distribution across the gyroscope axes. Reference angular velocity signals, either constant or representative of human walking, were corrupted with each of the four noise types within a simulation framework. The magnitude of the angular velocity affected the error in the orientation estimation due to each noise type, except for the white noise. Additionally, the error caused by the constant bias was also influenced by the angular velocity 3D distribution. As the orientation error depends not only on the noise itself but also on the signal it is applied to, different sensor placements could enhance or mitigate the error due to each disturbance, and special attention must be paid in providing and interpreting measures of accuracy for orientation estimation algorithms. Full article

Magnetic and inertial measurement units are an emerging technology to obtain 3D orientation of body segments in human movement analysis. In this respect, sensor fusion is used to limit the drift errors resulting from the gyroscope data integration by exploiting accelerometer and magnetic aiding sensors. The present study aims at investigating the effectiveness of sensor fusion methods under different experimental conditions. Manual and locomotion tasks, differing in time duration, measurement volume, presence/absence of static phases, and out-of-plane movements, were performed by six subjects, and recorded by one unit located on the forearm or the lower trunk, respectively. Two sensor fusion methods, representative of the stochastic (Extended Kalman Filter) and complementary (Non-linear observer) filtering, were selected, and their accuracy was assessed in terms of attitude (pitch and roll angles) and heading (yaw angle) errors using stereophotogrammetric data as a reference. The sensor fusion approaches provided significantly more accurate results than gyroscope data integration. Accuracy improved mostly for heading and when the movement exhibited stationary phases, evenly distributed 3D rotations, it occurred in a small volume, and its duration was greater than approximately 20 s. These results were independent from the specific sensor fusion method used. Practice guidelines for improving the outcome accuracy are provided. Full article