Next Article in Journal
Design of a Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Method Used for an Automatic Bearing Tracking System
Next Article in Special Issue
A Long-Term Performance Enhancement Method for FOG-Based Measurement While Drilling
Previous Article in Journal
Developing Ubiquitous Sensor Network Platform Using Internet of Things: Application in Precision Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Systematic Calibration for Ultra-High Accuracy Inertial Measurement Units
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sensors 2016, 16(7), 1132;

On Inertial Body Tracking in the Presence of Model Calibration Errors

Junior Research Group wearHEALTH, University of Kaiserslautern, Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 48, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Jörg F. Wagner
Received: 29 April 2016 / Revised: 6 July 2016 / Accepted: 11 July 2016 / Published: 22 July 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Inertial Sensors and Systems 2016)
Full-Text   |   PDF [3353 KB, uploaded 22 July 2016]   |  


In inertial body tracking, the human body is commonly represented as a biomechanical model consisting of rigid segments with known lengths and connecting joints. The model state is then estimated via sensor fusion methods based on data from attached inertial measurement units (IMUs). This requires the relative poses of the IMUs w.r.t. the segments—the IMU-to-segment calibrations, subsequently called I2S calibrations—to be known. Since calibration methods based on static poses, movements and manual measurements are still the most widely used, potentially large human-induced calibration errors have to be expected. This work compares three newly developed/adapted extended Kalman filter (EKF) and optimization-based sensor fusion methods with an existing EKF-based method w.r.t. their segment orientation estimation accuracy in the presence of model calibration errors with and without using magnetometer information. While the existing EKF-based method uses a segment-centered kinematic chain biomechanical model and a constant angular acceleration motion model, the newly developed/adapted methods are all based on a free segments model, where each segment is represented with six degrees of freedom in the global frame. Moreover, these methods differ in the assumed motion model (constant angular acceleration, constant angular velocity, inertial data as control input), the state representation (segment-centered, IMU-centered) and the estimation method (EKF, sliding window optimization). In addition to the free segments representation, the optimization-based method also represents each IMU with six degrees of freedom in the global frame. In the evaluation on simulated and real data from a three segment model (an arm), the optimization-based method showed the smallest mean errors, standard deviations and maximum errors throughout all tests. It also showed the lowest dependency on magnetometer information and motion agility. Moreover, it was insensitive w.r.t. I2S position and segment length errors in the tested ranges. Errors in the I2S orientations were, however, linearly propagated into the estimated segment orientations. In the absence of magnetic disturbances, severe model calibration errors and fast motion changes, the newly developed IMU centered EKF-based method yielded comparable results with lower computational complexity. View Full-Text
Keywords: inertial body tracking; biomechanical model; calibration; magnetometers; sensor fusion; extended Kalman filter; optimization inertial body tracking; biomechanical model; calibration; magnetometers; sensor fusion; extended Kalman filter; optimization

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material


Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Miezal, M.; Taetz, B.; Bleser, G. On Inertial Body Tracking in the Presence of Model Calibration Errors. Sensors 2016, 16, 1132.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sensors EISSN 1424-8220 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top