Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
Published on: May 8, 2014
The contribution of multibody optimization when using inertial measurement units to compute lower-body kinematics
Léonie Pacher1, Nicolas Vignais2, Christian Chatellier3
1Equipe Robotique, Biomécanique, Sport, Santé, Institut PPRIME, UPR3346 CNRS Université de Poitiers ENSMA, Poitiers, 11, Boulevard Marie et Pierre Curie, Site du Futuroscope, F-86073 POITIERS CEDEX 9, France.
Abstract:
Kinematics obtained using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) still present significant differences when compared to those obtained using optoelectronic systems. Multibody Optimization (MBO) might diminish these differences by reducing soft-tissue artefacts - probably emphasized when using IMUs - as established for optoelectronic-based kinematics. To test this hypothesis, 15 subjects were equipped with 7 IMUs and 38 reflective markers tracked by 18 optoelectronic cameras. The subjects walked, ran, cycled on an ergocycle, and performed a task which induced joint movements in the transverse and frontal planes. In addition to lower-body kinematics computed using the optoelectronical system data, three IMU-based kinematics were computed: from IMU orientations without MBO; from MBO performed using the OpenSense add-on of the OpenSim software (OpenSim 4.2, Stanford, USA); as outputs from the commercialised MVN MBO (Xsens, Netherlands). Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE), coefficients of correlations, and differences in range of motion were calculated between the three IMU-based methods and the reference kinematics. MVN MBO seems to present a slight advantage over Direct kinematics or OpenSense MBO, since it presents 34 times out of 48 (12 degrees of freedom * 4 sports activities) a mean RMSE inferior to the Direct and OpenSense kinematics. However, it was not always significant and the differences rarely exceeded 2°. This study does not therefore conclude on a significant contribution of MBO in improving lower-body kinematics obtained using IMUs. This lack of results can partly be explained by the weakness of both the kinematic constraints applied to the kinematic chain and segment stiffening. Personalization of the kinematic chain, the use of more than one IMU by segment in order to provide information redundancy, or the use of other approaches based on the Kalman Filter might increase this MBO impact.
Related Concept Videos
Kinetic Energy for a Rigid Body
Kinematic Equations - II
Suppose a car merges into freeway traffic on a 200 m long ramp. If its initial velocity is 10 m/s and it accelerates at 2 m/s2, then the...
Kinematic Equations - III
Using the kinematic equations,...
Kinematic Equations: Problem Solving
Kinematic Equations - I
Angular Momentum and Principle Axes of Inertia
To put this equation into simpler terms, it can be reconfigured using rectangular coordinates. This involves choosing an alternative set of XYZ axes that are arbitrarily inclined with respect to the reference frame. The process of deriving the rectangular...

