Comparison of a Low-Cost Miniature Inertial Sensor Module and a Fiber-Optic Gyroscope for Clinical Balance and Gait Assessments
Table 3
FOG to MEMS comparison results for the task “walking 8 tandem steps with eyes open.”
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
6.324
4.714
6.920
5.160
33.86
18.49
37.92
21.03
FOG mean
5.200
3.718
5.706
4.126
35.93
19.21
31.90
17.14
FOG SD
1.904
1.494
1.328
1.181
12.47
5.055
5.813
3.407
MEMS 2D mean
5.134
3.657
5.717
4.127
34.18
18.76
30.66
16.59
MEMS 2D SD
1.919
1.524
1.336
1.189
11.46
4.963
5.076
3.156
Error between 2D FOG and 2D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
1.04%
1.29%
0.16%
0.01%
5.17%
2.48%
3.28%
2.62%
value (paired t-test)
0.202
0.155
0.675
0.984
0.051
<0.001
0.216
0.003
MEMS 3D mean
5.126
3.641
5.957
4.229
MEMS 3D SD
1.968
1.534
1.132
1.113
Error between 2D FOG and 3D MEMS relative to mean normal reference
1.17%
1.64%
3.63%
1.98%
value (paired t-test)
0.496
0.447
0.132
0.412
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.
