Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
Applied SciencesApplied Sciences
  • Article
  • Open Access

24 May 2025

17 Pages

Comparative Assessment of an IMU-Based Wearable Device and a Marker-Based Optoelectronic System in Trunk Motion Analysis: A Cross-Sectional Investigation

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Information Engineering, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy
2
Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
3
IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, San Giuseppe Hospital, Strada Luigi Cadorna 90, 28824 Piancavallo, Italy
4
Department of Mechanical, Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy

Abstract

Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) are increasingly used in human motion analysis due to their ability to measure movement in real-world environments. However, with rapid technological advancement and a wide variety of models available, it is essential to evaluate their performance and suitability for analyzing specific body regions. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and precision of an IMU-based sensor in measuring trunk range of motion (ROM). Twenty-seven healthy adults (11 males, 16 females; mean age: 31.1 ± 11.0 years) participated. Each performed trunk movements—flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation—while angular data were recorded simultaneously using a single IMU and a marker-based optoelectronic motion capture (MoCap) system. Analyses included accuracy indices, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland–Altman limits of agreement. The IMU showed high accuracy in rotation (92.4%), with strong correlation (r = 0.944, p < 0.001) and excellent agreement [CCC = 0.927; (0.977–0.957)]. Flexion (72.1%), extension (64.1%), and lateral bending (61.4%) showed moderate accuracy and correlations (r = 0.703, 0.564, and 0.430, p < 0.05). The RMSE ranged from 1.09° (rotation) to 3.01° (flexion). While the IMU consistently underestimated ROM, its accuracy in rotation highlights its potential as a cost-effective MoCap alternative, warranting further study for broader clinical use.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.