Next Article in Journal
New Textile Sensors for In Situ Structural Health Monitoring of Textile Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites Based on the Conductive Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrenesulfonate) Polymer Complex
Previous Article in Journal
Biosensing Using Magnetic Particle Detection Techniques
Article Menu
Issue 10 (October) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sensors 2017, 17(10), 2301;

Validation of Foot Placement Locations from Ankle Data of a Kinect v2 Sensor

Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 14 September 2017 / Revised: 4 October 2017 / Accepted: 6 October 2017 / Published: 10 October 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2085 KB, uploaded 12 October 2017]   |  


The Kinect v2 sensor may be a cheap and easy to use sensor to quantify gait in clinical settings, especially when applied in set-ups integrating multiple Kinect sensors to increase the measurement volume. Reliable estimates of foot placement locations are required to quantify spatial gait parameters. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of distance from the sensor, side and step length on estimates of foot placement locations based on Kinect’s ankle body points. Subjects (n = 12) performed stepping trials at imposed foot placement locations distanced 2 m or 3 m from the Kinect sensor (distance), for left and right foot placement locations (side), and for five imposed step lengths. Body points’ time series of the lower extremities were recorded with a Kinect v2 sensor, placed frontoparallelly on the left side, and a gold-standard motion-registration system. Foot placement locations, step lengths, and stepping accuracies were compared between systems using repeated-measures ANOVAs, agreement statistics and two one-sided t-tests to test equivalence. For the right side at the 2 m distance from the sensor we found significant between-systems differences in foot placement locations and step lengths, and evidence for nonequivalence. This distance by side effect was likely caused by differences in body orientation relative to the Kinect sensor. It can be reduced by using Kinect’s higher-dimensional depth data to estimate foot placement locations directly from the foot’s point cloud and/or by using smaller inter-sensor distances in the case of a multi-Kinect v2 set-up to estimate foot placement locations at greater distances from the sensor. View Full-Text
Keywords: Kinect v2 sensor; foot placement locations; gait; validation; orientation; TOST procedure Kinect v2 sensor; foot placement locations; gait; validation; orientation; TOST procedure

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

Geerse, D.; Coolen, B.; Kolijn, D.; Roerdink, M. Validation of Foot Placement Locations from Ankle Data of a Kinect v2 Sensor. Sensors 2017, 17, 2301.

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