Introduction: Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) offer a promising alternative to optoelectronic systems to obtain joint lower-limb kinematics during gait. However, the associated methodologies, such as sensor-to-segment (S2S) calibration and multibody optimization, have been developed mainly for, and tested on, asymptomatic subjects.

Research question: This study proposes to evaluate two personalizations of the methodology used to obtain lower-body kinematics from IMUs with pathological subjects: S2S calibration and multibody optimization.

Methods: Based on previous studies, two decision trees were developed to select the best (in terms of accuracy and repeatability) S2S methods to be performed by the patient given his/her abilities. The multibody optimization was personalized by limiting the kinematic chain range of motion to the results of the subject's clinical examination. These two propositions were tested on 12 patients with various gait deficits. The patients were equipped with IMUs and reflective markers tracked by an optoelectronic system. They had to perform the postures and movements selected by the decision trees then walk back and forth along a walkway. Gait kinematics obtained from the IMUs directly (referred to as Direct kinematics), and after multibody optimization performed via the OpenSim software using the generic range of motion (referred to as Generic Optimized kinematics), and using the personalized range of motion (referred to as Personalized Optimized kinematics) were compared to those obtained with the Conventional Gait Model through Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE), Correlation Coefficients (CC) and Range of Motion differences (ΔROM).

Results: The RMSEs were smaller than 8.1° in the sagittal plane but greater than 7.4° in the transverse plane. The CCs, between 0.71 and 0.99 in the sagittal plane, deteriorate sharply in the frontal and transverse planes where they only measured between 0.15 and 0.68. The ΔROMs were mostly below 8.3°. Optimized kinematics did not improve compared to Direct kinematics.

Significance: The personalization of the proposed S2S calibration method showed encouraging results, whereas multibody optimization did not impact the resulting joint kinematics.