Next Article in Journal
Recognition of Crop Diseases Based on Depthwise Separable Convolution in Edge Computing
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Pose Tracking Performance of the Azure Kinect and Kinect v2 for Gait Analysis in Comparison with a Gold Standard: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Bedload Transport Monitoring in Alpine Rivers: Variability in Swiss Plate Geophone Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Choosing the Best Sensor Fusion Method: A Machine-Learning Approach
Open AccessArticle

How We Found Our IMU: Guidelines to IMU Selection and a Comparison of Seven IMUs for Pervasive Healthcare Applications

1
Digital Health Center, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
2
NETLAB, Department of Computer Engineering, Bogazici University, 34342 Istanbul, Turkey
3
Division of Training and Movement Sciences, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(15), 4090; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20154090
Received: 9 June 2020 / Revised: 12 July 2020 / Accepted: 16 July 2020 / Published: 22 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mobile Sensors for Healthcare)
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are commonly used for localization or movement tracking in pervasive healthcare-related studies, and gait analysis is one of the most often studied topics using IMUs. The increasing variety of commercially available IMU devices offers convenience by combining the sensor modalities and simplifies the data collection procedures. However, selecting the most suitable IMU device for a certain use case is increasingly challenging. In this study, guidelines for IMU selection are proposed. In particular, seven IMUs were compared in terms of their specifications, data collection procedures, and raw data quality. Data collected from the IMUs were then analyzed by a gait analysis algorithm. The difference in accuracy of the calculated gait parameters between the IMUs could be used to retrace the issues in raw data, such as acceleration range or sensor calibration. Based on our algorithm, we were able to identify the best-suited IMUs for our needs. This study provides an overview of how to select the IMUs based on the area of study with concrete examples, and gives insights into the features of seven commercial IMUs using real data. View Full-Text
Keywords: inertial measurement unit; pervasive healthcare; gait analysis; comparison of devices inertial measurement unit; pervasive healthcare; gait analysis; comparison of devices
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, L.; Fischer, E.; Tunca, C.; Brahms, C.M.; Ersoy, C.; Granacher, U.; Arnrich, B. How We Found Our IMU: Guidelines to IMU Selection and a Comparison of Seven IMUs for Pervasive Healthcare Applications. Sensors 2020, 20, 4090.

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.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop