Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 21, 2026
Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
Published on: May 8, 2014
Modified conventional gait model vs. Six degrees of freedom model: A comparison of lower limb kinematics and
B Langley1, A Jones1, T Board2
1Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Background:
The conventional gait model (CGM) is commonly utilised within clinical motion analysis but has a number of inherent limitations. To overcome some of these limitations modifications have been made to the CGM and six-degrees of freedom models (6DoF) have been developed.
Research Question:
How comparable are lower limb kinematics calculated using modified CGM and 6DoF models and what is the error associated with the output of each model during walking?
Methods:
Ten healthy males attended two gait analysis sessions, in which they walked at a self-selected pace, while a 10-camera motion capture system recorded lower limb kinematics. Hip, knee and ankle joint kinematics in all three anatomical planes were calculated using a modified CGM, with medial anatomical markers and a three-dimensional foot added, and 6DoF. Mean absolute differences were calculated on a point-by-point basis over the walking gait cycle and interpreted relative to a 5° threshold to explore the comparability of model outputs. The standard error of the measurement (SEM) was also calculated on a point-by-point basis over the walking gait cycle for each model.
Results:
Mean absolute differences above 5° were reported between the two model outputs in 58-86% of the walking gait cycle at the knee in the frontal plane, and over the entire walking gait cycle at the hip and knee in the transverse plane. SEM was typically larger for the modified CGM compared to the 6DoF, with the highest SEM values reported at the knee in the frontal plane, and the hip and the knee in the transverse plane.
Significance:
Caution should be taken when looking to compare findings between studies utilising modified CGM and 6DoF outside of the sagittal plane, especially at the hip and knee. The reduced SEM associated with the 6DoF suggests this modelling approach may be preferable.
