The One-week Reliability Of Spatiotemporal Walking Gait Metrics Using Insole-embedded IMUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insole-embedded inertial measurement units (IMUs) are portable and affordable compared to cumbersome and expensive laboratory equipment used to conduct gait analysis. However, there is a paucity of research on the short-term reliability of insole-embedded IMUs for walking gait. PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the 1-week reliability of spatiotemporal outcomes derived from insole-embedded IMUs in walking. METHODS: Eight healthy, recreationally active adults (5 males, 3 females) participated in two data collections one week apart. Each participant was equipped with two insole-embedded IMUs and standardized footwear. Participants walked for 1-minute on a treadmill at three different speeds (1.0, 1.4, and 1.8 m/s) in randomized order. Spatiotemporal outcomes included ground contact time (GCT), swing time, single limb support, double limb support, and cadence. To assess the reliability of the spatiotemporal variables, we calculated intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: Spatiotemporal variables exhibited excellent reliability with low SEM and MDC values across all speeds between the two sessions (Table 1). The smallest SEM and greatest ICC values were at the fastest walking speed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that spatiotemporal variables from insole-embedded IMUs are reliable at different speeds of walking. Therefore, insole-embedded IMUs may be a valid alternative for clinicians to analyze walking gait patterns from slow to high speed of walking as well as to monitor key metrics for a progress assessment tool between therapy sessions. Table 1. The one-week reliability of spatiotemporal variables from insole-embedded IMUs during walking at 1.0 m/s, 1.4 m/s, and 1.8 m/s. ICC = Intra-class correlation coefficient; SEM = Standard error of measurement; MDC = Minimal detectable change; GCT = Ground contact time. - Mean ± SD Session 1 Session 2 ICC (95% CI) SEM MDC 1.0 m/s 1.4 m/s 1.8 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.4 m/s 1.8 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.4 m/s 1.8 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.4 m/s 1.8 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.4 m/s 1.8 m/s Average GCT (ms) 734.25 ± 57.26 612.00 ± 41.07 537.63 ± 34.83 750.50 ± 54.14 624.00 ± 47.33 540.50 ± 33.99 0.959 (0.603-0.993) 0.936 (0.678-0.987) 0.977 (0.896-0.995) 11.282 11.210 5.178 31.273 31.072 14.353 Average swing time (ms) 0.45 ± 0.04 0.42 ± 0.03 0.40 ± 0.02 0.46 ± 0.04 0.42 ± 0.03 0.40 ± 0.02 0.974 (0.837-0.995) 0.928 (0.677-0.985) 0.968 (0.844-0.994) 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.017 0.022 0.011 Single limb support (%) 76.35 ± 2.01 81.14 ± 2.52 86.03 ± 2.65 76.11 ± 1.95 80.91 ± 2.43 85.52 ± 2.36 0.980 (0.910-0.996) 0.977 (0.895-0.995) 0.988 (0.838-0.998) 0.278 0.376 0.275 0.777 1.042 0.763 Double limb support (%) 23.65 ± 2.01 18.86 ± 2.52 14.08 ± 2.48 23.89 ± 1.95 19.09 ± 2.43 14.48 ± 2.36 0.98 (0.910-0.996) 0.977 (0.895-0.995) 0.988 (0.839-0.998) 0.280 0.376 0.265 0.777 1.042 0.736 Cadence (steps/min) 104.87 ± 8.20 119.27 ± 6.86 128.58 ± 6.20 102.55 ± 6.95 117.77 ± 7.21 128.97 ± 6.36 0.943 (0.629-0.989) 0.913 (0.608-0.982) 0.974 (0.873-0.995) 1.817 2.077 1.020 5.038 5.756 2.827
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".