Comparison of a Low-Cost Miniature Inertial Sensor Module and a Fiber-Optic Gyroscope for Clinical Balance and Gait Assessments
Table 2
FOG to MEMS comparison results for the task “get up and go 3 meters.”
Value
PtP Ro A (°)
90 Ro A (°)
PtP Pi A (°)
90 Pi
PtP Ro V (°/s)
90 Ro V (°/s)
PtP Pi V (°/s)
90 Pi V (°/s)
Mean normal reference
6.451
5.201
45.95
41.90
53.78
29.61
191.7
126.5
FOG mean
5.646
4.347
34.59
31.44
50.61
28.16
139.6
93.18
FOG SD
1.931
1.252
5.858
5.615
23.13
9.960
33.03
27.74
MEMS 2D mean
5.927
4.645
34.57
31.55
48.08
27.78
137.3
92.60
MEMS 2D SD
1.966
1.428
5.876
5.599
21.78
9.768
32.48
26.97
Error between 2D FOG and 2D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
4.35%
5.73%
0.04%
0.26%
4.69%
1.25%
1.18%
0.46%
value (paired t-test)
0.077
0.024
0.614
0.167
0.278
0.260
<0.001
0.343
MEMS 3D mean
6.746
5.323
34.54
31.50
MEMS 3D SD
1.962
1.532
5.997
5.722
Error between 2D FOG and 3D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
17.0%
18.7%
0.12%
0.15%
value (paired t-test)
0.002
0.002
0.512
0.572
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. Note that the differences in 3D are only presented for the angle values; the pitch and roll angular velocities are equal for 2D and 3D. Significant difference between the absolute values of FOG and 2D/3D MEMS before any Bonferroni correction.
