The Effect of Sensor Placement on Measured Distal Tibial Accelerations During Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) attached to the distal tibia are a validated method of measuring lower-extremity impact accelerations, called tibial accelerations (TAs), in runners. However, no studies have investigated the effects of small errors in IMU placement, which would be expected in real-world, autonomous use of IMUs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a small proximal shift in IMU location on mean TAs and relationships between TAs and ground reaction force loading rates. IMUs were strapped to 18 injury-free runners at a specified standard location (∼1 cm proximal to medial malleolus) and 2 cm proximal to the standard location. TAs and ground reaction forces were measured while participants ran at self-selected and 10% slower/faster speeds. Mean TA was lower at the standard versus proximal IMU location in the faster running condition (P = .026), but similar in the slower (P = .643) and self-selected conditions (P = .654). Mean TAs measured at the standard IMU explained more variation in ground reaction force loading rates (r2 = .79-.90; P < .001) compared with those measured at the proximal IMU (r2 = .65-.72; P < .001). These results suggest that careful attention should be given to IMU placement when measuring TAs during running.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".