Obtaining wheelchair kinematics with one sensor only? The trade-off between number of inertial sensors and accuracy for measuring wheelchair mobility performance in sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In wheelchair sports, the use of Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) has proven to be one of the most accessible ways for ambulatory measurement of wheelchair kinematics. A three-IMU configuration, with one IMU attached to the wheelchair frame and two IMUs on each wheel axle, has previously shown accurate results and is considered optimal for accuracy. Configurations with fewer sensors reduce costs and could enhance usability, but may be less accurate. The aim of this study was to quantify the decline in accuracy for measuring wheelchair kinematics with a stepwise sensor reduction. Ten differently skilled participants performed a series of wheelchair sport specific tests while their performance was simultaneously measured with IMUs and an optical motion capture system which served as reference. Subsequently, both a one-IMU and a two-IMU configuration were validated and the accuracy of the two approaches was compared for linear and angular wheelchair velocity. Results revealed that the one-IMU approach show a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.10 m/s for absolute linear velocity and a MAE of 8.1°/s for wheelchair angular velocity when compared with the reference system. The two-IMU approach showed similar differences for absolute linear wheelchair velocity (MAE 0.10 m/s), and smaller differences for angular velocity (MAE 3.0°/s). Overall, a lower number of IMUs used in the configuration resulted in a lower accuracy of wheelchair kinematics. Based on the results of this study, choices regarding the number of IMUs can be made depending on the aim, required accuracy and resources available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".