Comparison of a Low-Cost Miniature Inertial Sensor Module and a Fiber-Optic Gyroscope for Clinical Balance and Gait Assessments
Table 1
FOG to MEMS comparison results for the task “standing on two legs with eyes open” of all recordings.
Value
PtP Ro A (°)
90 Ro A (°)
PtP Pi A (°)
90 Pi A (°)
PtP Ro V (°/s)
90 Ro V (°/s)
PtP Pi V (°/s)
90 Pi V (°/s)
Mean normal reference
0.493
0.368
1.250
1.004
1.742
0.604
3.311
1.336
FOG mean
0.450
0.322
1.352
1.108
1.553
0.609
2.884
1.404
FOG SD
0.364
0.258
0.481
0.412
0.759
0.261
0.980
0.544
MEMS 2D mean
0.427
0.298
1.337
1.102
1.525
0.595
2.763
1.368
MEMS 2D SD
0.338
0.261
0.484
0.408
0.783
0.266
0.967
0.536
Error between 2D FOG and 2D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
4.66%
6.46%
1.20%
0.63%
1.61%
2.34%
3.67%
2.68%
value (paired t-test)
0.242
0.044
0.528
0.739
0.635
0.073
0.079
<0.001
MEMS 3D mean
0.420
0.307
1.299
1.068
MEMS 3D SD
0.229
0.171
0.338
0.325
Error between 2D FOG and 3D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
6.16%
4.03%
4.26%
3.97%
value (paired t-test)
0.654
0.769
0.273
0.340
PtP: peak-to-peak range, 90 : 90% range (95%–5% percentiles); Ro: roll; Pi: pitch; A: angle in degrees; V: angular velocity in degrees/seconds. Significant difference between the absolute values of FOG and 2D/3D MEMS before any Bonferroni correction. The mean normal reference values are taken from an age-matched group [5].
