sensors
Article
Quantification of Error Sources with Inertial Measurement
Units in Sports
Haye Kamstra 1,† , Erik Wilmes 2,3, *,† and Frans C. T. van der Helm 1
Citation: Kamstra, H.; Wilmes, E.;
van der Helm, F.C.T. Quantification
of Error Sources with Inertial
Measurement Units in Sports. Sensors
2022, 22, 9765. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s22249765
Academic Editor: Chi Hwan Lee
Received: 15 November 2022
Accepted: 10 December 2022
Published: 13 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22249765
1 Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering,
Delft University of Technology, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
2 Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and
Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Royal Netherlands Football Association, 3707 HX Zeist, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: e.wilmes@vu.nl
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: Background: Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer the possibility to capture the lower
body motions of players of outdoor team sports. However, various sources of error are present when
using IMUs: the definition of the body frames, the soft tissue artefact (STA) and the orientation filter.
Methods to minimize these errors are currently being used without knowing their exact influence
on the various sources of errors. The goal of this study was to present a method to quantify each of
the sources of error of an IMU separately. Methods: An optoelectronic system was used as a gold
standard. Rigid marker clusters (RMCs) were designed to construct a rigid connection between the
IMU and four markers. This allowed for the separate quantification of each of the sources of error. Ten
subjects performed nine different football-specific movements, varying both in the type of movement,
and in movement intensity. Results: The error of the definition of the body frames (11.3–18.7 deg
RMSD), the STA (3.8–9.1 deg RMSD) and the error of the orientation filter (3.0–12.7 deg RMSD) were
all quantified separately for each body segment. Conclusions: The error sources of IMU-based motion
analysis were quantified separately. This allows future studies to quantify and optimize the effects of
error reduction techniques.
Keywords: inertial measurement unit; soft tissue artefact; orientation filter; error quantification; football
1. Introduction
Human motion analyses can provide valuable information regarding athletic perfor-
mance in sports. Currently the gold standard for human motion analysis is an optoelectronic
system [1], it uses multiple cameras and skin placed markers on bony anatomical land-
marks to capture the motion of the human body. However, this method has some important
limitations, including a restricted measurement volume, extensive set-up procedures, high
costs, difficulty measuring multiple persons at the same time, and the requirement of expert
knowledge. These limitations restrict the use of optoelectronic-based motion analysis to
research settings. The use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) overcomes these issues
and allows for human motion analysis outside laboratory settings [2]. An IMU consists of a
combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and optionally magnetometers. Measurements
from these sensors are combined in a process called ‘sensor fusion’ to obtain the orientation
of the IMU. Therefore, when IMUs are fixated to body segments, their orientation in space
can be estimated. Consequently, recent years have seen an increased interest in IMUs in
sports specific settings.
Multiple studies have validated IMUs with optoelectronics for whole body kinemat-
ics [3], lower body kinematics during gait [4,5], lower body kinematics during dynamic
movements [6,7], and upper body kinematics [8,9]. Relative joint angle errors between both
methods were present in all studies and ranged from 2 to 14 degrees root-mean-square error
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 2 of 18

(RMSE). With IMU-based motion analysis, these joint angles are determined by calculating
the relative orientation between IMUs on adjacent body segments. Therefore, errors in the
orientation estimation of both body segments are propagated to the joint angle errors. To
the best of our knowledge, no study has quantified the errors of body segment orientations
separately. Moreover, no study has separated these errors to the different sources of error
that exist in IMU-based human motion analysis. There are three important sources of
error to consider: the definition of the body frames, the soft tissue artefact (STA), and the
orientation filter.
Body frames are defined directly from 3D marker positions when using optoelectronics.
IMUs, however, have their own local coordinate frame attached to the sensor, necessitating
a sensor-body calibration procedure to define body frames. These procedures incorporate
pre-defined postures [10–12] or movements [13,14], which must be executed by the person
being measured. This means that the accuracy of the sensor-body calibration depends on
the execution of the calibration movements or postures. Consequently, the definitions of the
body frames may differ between optoelectronics and IMU-based motion analysis methods.
The Soft Tissue Artefact (STA) is defined as the error caused by the relative motion
between the bone and the skin. STA is possibly the biggest source of error in the field of
human motion analysis [15]. Both optoelectronics and IMUs suffer from STA. However,
optoelectronic systems are less vulnerable to STA because it measures marker positions.
Markers are relatively far apart, and marker locations are chosen such that relative motion
between the markers and bone is minimized. Therefore, the effects on the modeled body
segment orientations may be relatively small. An IMU, on the other hand, is directly
affected by a change in orientation of the skin with respect to the bone. Especially in sports,
this may be a problem because of muscles bulging when contracting, and because of inertia
effects around moments of impact with the ground. However, since STA quantification is
difficult and has so far been limited to small scale, low activity studies [16], no studies have
quantified the STA of IMUs.
To estimate the orientation of an IMU, the measurements of the rate gyroscopes are
integrated. However, due to integration drift, the computed orientation would suffer from
large errors within seconds. To compensate for this drift, both the accelerometers and
magnetometers are assumed to measure a constant vector, gravity, and the earths’ magnetic
field, respectively. An orientation filter combines orientation estimates based on these
vectors with the orientation estimates based on the rate gyroscope measurements to obtain
a better sensor orientation estimate [17]. In the case of magnetic field distortions or linear
accelerations, the assumption of a constant vectors no longer holds true, which leads to
orientation errors [18].
To the best of our knowledge, no study has been performed separating the error
of IMU-based body segment orientations in the definition of the body frames, the STA,
and the orientation filter. Consequently, methods to minimize the various errors are
currently being used without knowing their exact influence. Therefore, the goal of this
study is to present a method to quantify the sources of body segment orientation errors in
human motion analysis with IMUs. The errors are quantified for the example of football
movements, which we think would be representative for other field sports as well. In
addition, various calibration techniques, movement types, and movement intensities are
compared to examine their influence on the different sources of error. The quantification of
these errors can provide a necessary insight for all human motion analysis studies using
IMUs and would allow for the optimization of error reduction techniques. In addition,
raw data and accompanying software to quantify the different sources of error are openly
available to allow other researchers to optimize their own data processing methods, and
to quantify the performance of different data processing methods. It was hypothesized
that different calibration movements, movement intensities, movement types, and different
body segments, would influence the different sources of error of human motion analysis
with IMUs.
 the performance of different data processing methods. It was hypothesized that different
calibration movements, movement intensities, movement types, and different body seg-
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 ments, would influence the different sources of error of human motion analysis 3withof 18
IMUs.

2. Materials and Methods

2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Subjects and Instrumentation
2.1. Subjects and Instrumentation
Thirteen male
Thirteen male subjects
subjects (mean
(mean±± std:
std: age
age [y]
[y] 22.4
22.4 ±± 2.2, height [cm]
2.2, height [cm] 182
182 ±± 8.3, weight
8.3, weight
[kg] 72.2 ± 10) participated in the study. However, due to technical issues,
[kg] 72.2 ± 10) participated in the study. However, due to technical issues, the data the data of three
of
participants could not be used for data analysis. All subjects were active
three participants could not be used for data analysis. All subjects were active football football players
with at least
players with five years
at least of years
five experience and had and
of experience theirhad
right leg right
their as their
legpreferred leg of shoot-
as their preferred leg
ing. All subjects signed an informed consent in accordance with the
of shooting. All subjects signed an informed consent in accordance with the Declaration Declaration of Hel-
sinki
of and the
Helsinki andstudy was approved
the study was approved by the byethics committee
the ethics committeeof theof VU
the Amsterdam.
VU Amsterdam. No
subjects had any injury at the time of testing. Subjects were equipped
No subjects had any injury at the time of testing. Subjects were equipped with five IMUs with five IMUs
(MPU-9150, Invensense,
(MPU-9150, Invensense, SanJose,
SanJose, CA,
CA, USA).
USA). The IMUs were
The IMUs placed on
were placed on the
the left
left and
and right
right
thigh, left and right shank and on the pelvis, see Figure 1. Data was gathered
thigh, left and right shank and on the pelvis, see Figure 1. Data was gathered at 500 Hz and at 500 Hz
and logged
logged on a on
SDacardSD card
insideinside the IMU,
the IMU, allowing
allowing for offline
for offline analysis.
analysis.

Figure 1. 1. Subject
Subjectinstrumentation.
instrumentation.IMUs
IMUswere
wereplaced
placedinin
thethe Rigid
Rigid Marker
Marker Clusters
Clusters andand placed
placed on
on the
the left and right thigh, left and right shank and pelvis, represented by yellow circles in the
left and right thigh, left and right shank and pelvis, represented by yellow circles in the figure. An figure.
An enlarged
enlarged RMC RMC is shown
is shown on the
on the right-hand
right-hand side.
side. Markers
Markers werewere placed
placed on on
thethe following
following anatom-
anatomical
ical landmarks: the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines, the posterior side of the thighs half-
landmarks: the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines, the posterior side of the thighs halfway
way the length hip to knee, the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles, the anterior side of each
the length hip to knee, the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles, the anterior side of each shank
shank halfway the length knee to ankle and the medial and lateral malleoli, represented by blue
halfway
circles inthethelength
figure.knee to ankle and the medial and lateral malleoli, represented by blue circles in
the figure.
Sixteen retro-reflective markers were placed on the following anatomical landmarks:
Sixteen retro-reflective markers were placed on the following anatomical landmarks:
the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines, the posterior side of the thighs halfway
the anterior and posterior superior iliac spines, the posterior side of the thighs halfway
the length hip to knee, the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles, the anterior side of
the length hip to knee, the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles, the anterior side of
each shank halfway the length knee to ankle and the medial and lateral malleoli, see Fig-
each shank halfway the length knee to ankle and the medial and lateral malleoli, see
ure 1. The location of the markers was captured at 250 Hz with cameras of the Vicon Op-
Figure 1. The location of the markers was captured at 250 Hz with cameras of the Vicon
toelectronic system (Eight Vicon V5 cameras, Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK).
Optoelectronic system (Eight Vicon V5 cameras, Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK).
A Rigid
A Rigid Marker
MarkerCluster
Cluster(RMC)
(RMC)is is
a rigid connection
a rigid between
connection 4 markers
between and the
4 markers andIMU
the
[6]. A 3D model was designed in SolidWorks (SolidWorks 2015, Dassault Systèmes,
IMU [6]. A 3D model was designed in SolidWorks (SolidWorks 2015, Dassault Systèmes,
Winchester, MA, USA) and printed in PLA with an Ultimaker 3D printer, weighing
41 g including IMU, see Figure 1. The position of these markers was also captured at
250 HZ with the Vicon Optoelectronic system. The local coordinate system of the RMCs
was defined so that when an IMU was placed inside the RMC, their coordinate systems
were aligned.
 Winchester, MA, USA) and printed in PLA with an Ultimaker 3D printer, weighing 41 g
including IMU, see Figure 1. The position of these markers was also captured at 250 HZ
with the Vicon Optoelectronic system. The local coordinate system of the RMCs was de-
fined so that when an IMU was placed inside the RMC, their coordinate systems were
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 aligned. 4 of 18

2.2. Protocol
2.2. Protocol
The IMUs were turned on and time synchronized with a mechanical peak in the ac-
celerometers
The IMUs [19]. Theturned
were IMUs and markers
on and timewere fixed to thewith
synchronized RMCs with doublepeak
a mechanical sidedinad-the
accelerometers [19]. The IMUs and markers were fixed to the RMCs with doubleadhe-
hesive tape. The RMCs and markers were placed on shaved skin with double sided sided
sive tape, tape.
adhesive see Figure 1.
The RMCs and markers were placed on shaved skin with double sided
A sensor-body calibration
adhesive tape, see Figure 1. was necessary to construct coordinate systems for each
bodyAsegment.
sensor-bodyThreecalibration
different sensor-body
was necessary calibrations
to constructwerecoordinate
performed.systems
All calibration
for each
methods
body had the
segment. samedifferent
Three first step, a static calibration
sensor-body calibrationsin the neutral
were pose. InAll
performed. thiscalibration
position
the longitudinal
methods axis offirst
had the same each body
step, segment
a static was assumed
calibration to be pose.
in the neutral parallel to gravity
In this position andthe
could therefore be defined. The second step of the sensor-body calibration
longitudinal axis of each body segment was assumed to be parallel to gravity and could was a move-
ment performed
therefore in the The
be defined. sagittal planestep
second andof could therefore be used
the sensor-body to define
calibration theafrontal
was movementaxis
of the body segments. The third axis of the coordinate systems of the body
performed in the sagittal plane and could therefore be used to define the frontal axis of the segments was
defined
body orthogonal
segments. Theto the axis
third longitudinal and horizontal
of the coordinate systems axis
of [7].
the The
bodythree different
segments wassensor-
defined
calibration to
orthogonal movements were: bow
the longitudinal and and thigh rise
horizontal axis(A),
[7].squat (B) and
The three inclined
different plank (C) [12],
sensor-calibration
see Figure 2.were:
movements For the
bowinclined
and thigh plank
risemovement,
(A), squat (B) theand
subject had plank
inclined to place
(C)his hands
[12], on an 2.
see Figure
object
For theininclined
front him andmovement,
plank move towards this object
the subject had to while keeping
place his handshis legs
on anand torso
object in in a
front
straight line.
him and move towards this object while keeping his legs and torso in a straight line.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Sensor-body
Sensor-body calibration
calibration movements.
movements.Calibration
Calibration(A)
(A)consists
consistsofofaaneutral
neutralpose
posefollowed
followed
by a bow, right thigh rise and left thigh rise. Calibration (B) consists of a neutral pose and a squat
by a bow, right thigh rise and left thigh rise. Calibration (B) consists of a neutral pose and a squat
movement. Calibration (C) consists of a neutral pose and an inclined plank movement.
movement. Calibration (C) consists of a neutral pose and an inclined plank movement.

After the sensor-body calibrations, three types of movement were executed at three
intensities. The nine trials were: a squat, a squat jump at 50% intensity, a squat jump at 100%
intensity, a walk, a run at 50% intensity, a sprint at 100% intensity, a pass, a cross and a shot.
Because the criterion to control movement intensity were qualitative, there may have been
some variability in movement execution within and between subjects. However, if a higher
movement intensity would result in larger errors, this would still show in the results. All
subjects used their right leg as their kicking leg. Each trial was repeated eight times.
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 5 of 18

2.3. Data Processing

The raw marker position data was processed in the Vicon Nexus (version 2.7.3, Vicon
Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK). Possible gaps in marker trajectories were filled using
Nexus’ Woltring gap fill algorithm, the rigid body gap fill and the kinematic gap fill for
gaps of a maximum of 0.05, 0.1 and 0.7 s, respectively, according to the recommendations
by Visual 3D (C-Motion, Inc, Germantown, MD, USA). Of the eight recorded trials, the first
five trials without gaps larger than 0.7 s were used for further processing. Marker data was
exported to Matlab (version 2020a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Based on the
recommendations by Visual 3D (C-Motion, Inc, Germantown, MD, USA) to reduce marker
position noise, a fourth order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 8 Hz
was applied to all marker trajectories. Based on the markers on the anatomical landmarks,
in combination with a measurement of the leg length, body frames were defined for the
left and right thigh, left and right shank and the pelvis, based on Cappozzo et al. [20]
and following ISB recommendations [21]. These body frames were named the Anatomical
Landmark marker calibrated body frames (AL-mcbf). The markers on the RMC were used
to construct an RMC sensor frame (RMC-sf), which was aligned with the IMU sensor frame
(IMU-sf). Both the orientation of the AL-mcbf and the RMC-sf frames were described
as rotation quaternions relative to the global reference frame (GRF) of the Vicon system.
Rotation quaternions were used since they provide a continuous description of orientation
and do not suffer from difficulties such as gimbal lock.
Offsets and misalignment in the IMU sensors were compensated for with an IMU-
sensor calibration [22,23]. A gradient descent Madgwick algorithm with a filter gain of
0.043 [17] was used to compute the orientation of the IMU sensor frame (IMU-sf) relative to
the IMU-Reference frame (IRF). Thereafter, IMU was down sampled to 250 Hz to match the
sample frequency of the marker data. Furthermore, the IMU data was synchronized with
the marker data according to [7]. This means that besides a potential synchronization error,
the maximal remaining phase error was 0.002 s. The already described sensor-body calibra-
tion movements were used to compute the IMU-body frames. The sensor-body calibration
procedure was based on Wilmes et al. [7] and followed the ISB recommendations [21]. Body
frames were constructed for each of the different sensor-body calibration movements. These
frames were named the IMU sensor calibrated body frames A–C (IMU-scbf(A–C)) based
on which calibration movement was used, see Equation (1), BA q is the rotation quaternion
from frame A to frame B, qt is a time varying rotation quaternion and q is a time invariant
rotation quaternion).
IMU−scbf(A−C) IMU−sf IMU−scbf(A−C)
IRF qt = IRF qt ⊗ IMU−sf q (1)

To compare the quaternions based on the IMU measurements with the quaternions
based on the optoelectronic measurements, they must be described with respect to the
same global reference frame using a hand-eye calibration [24]. A large compass with
markers at both ends was used to determine the quaternion between the IRF and GRF [17].
The compass was placed in the middle of the measurement volume and thereby as far
away from any electrical wiring as possible to minimize the potential influence of local
magnetic field distortions on the hand-eye calibration. The hand-eye calibration quaternion
was then used to describe the IMU-sf and the IMU-scbf(A–C) relative to the GRF, see
Equations (2) and (3):
IMU−sf IRF IMU−sf
GRF qt = GRF q ⊗ IRF qt (2)
IMU−scbf(A−C) IMU−scbf(A−C)
GRF qt = IRF
GRF q ⊗ IRF qt (3)
 quaternion was then used to describe the IMU-sf and the IMU-scbf(A–C) relative to the
GRF, see Equations (2) and (3):
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒇 𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒇 6 of 18
𝑰𝑹𝑭
𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒𝒕 = 𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒 ⊗ 𝑰𝑹𝑭𝒒𝒕 (2)
𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒄𝒃𝒇(𝑨 𝑪) 𝑰𝑹𝑭 𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒄𝒃𝒇(𝑨 𝑪)
𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒𝒕 = 𝑮𝑹𝑭 𝒒 ⊗ 𝑰𝑹𝑭𝒒𝒕
(3)
Furthermore, to quantify the error of the definition of the body frames, the IMU-sf
Furthermore, to quantify the error of the definition of the body frames, the IMU-sf
and RMC-sf were rotated to a marker calibrated body frame, based on the static trial, see
and RMC-sf were rotated to a marker calibrated body frame, based on the static trial, see
Equations (4)–(7). An overview of all data processing steps is provided in Figure 3.
Equations (4)–(7). An overview of all data processing steps is provided in Figure 3.
1𝟏 𝒏n −𝟏1
𝑰𝑴𝑼−𝒔𝒇 AL−mcbf −sf𝒔𝒇
∑
IMU sf IMU
𝒒=
mcbf q = n∑ 𝒕 𝟏
((𝑨𝑳 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇 𝒒q𝒕t ) ⊗
𝑰𝑴𝑼
⊗ GRF𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒
q t )𝒕 (4)
(4)
𝑨𝑳−𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇
AL 𝒏 t = 1 GRF
𝑮𝑹𝑭

𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇 𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒇 𝑨𝑳 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇

IMU−mcbf𝒒𝒕 = IMU−sf𝒒𝒕 ⊗AL−mcbf 𝒒 (5)
𝑮𝑹𝑭 q 𝑮𝑹𝑭 q ⊗ 𝑰𝑴𝑼 𝒔𝒇
GRF t = GRF t IMU−sf q (5)
𝑹𝑴𝑪 𝒔𝒇 𝟏 𝑨𝑳 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇 𝟏
𝑹𝑴𝑪 𝒔𝒇
−sf𝒒= 1 ∑𝒏𝒕n𝟏 AL−mcbf
𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒
−1 ⊗ RMC − sf 𝒒𝒕 (6)
𝒏∑
RMC
𝑨𝑳 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇 𝒕 𝑮𝑹𝑭
AL−mcbf q
= (( GRF tq ) ⊗ GRF qt ) (6)
n t=1
𝑹𝑴𝑪 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇 𝑹𝑴𝑪 𝒔𝒇 𝑨𝑳 𝒎𝒄𝒃𝒇
𝑮𝑹𝑭𝒒𝒕 = RMC
RMC−mcbf −sf𝒒𝒕 ⊗ AL𝑹𝑴𝑪
𝑮𝑹𝑭 𝒔𝒇𝒒
−mcbf (7)
GRF tq = q
GRF t ⊗ RMC−sf q (7)

Figure
Figure3.3.Data
Dataprocessing
processing flow chart.
chart. Measurements
Measurementswere wereconverted
convertedto to rotation
rotation quaternions
quaternions be-
between
tween two frames.
two frames. IRF IRF = IMU
= IMU Reference
Reference Frame,
Frame, GRF= =Global
GRF GlobalReference
Reference Frame,
Frame, IMU-sf
IMU-sf ==IMU
IMUsensor
sensor
frame,
frame,IMU-scbf(A–C)
IMU-scbf(A–C) = IMU sensor
= IMU calibrated
sensor bodybody
calibrated frameframe
A, B and
A, BC,and
RMC-sf = RMC sensor
C, RMC-sf = RMCframe,
sensor
AL-mcbf
frame, AL-mcbf = Anatomical Landmarks marker calibrated body frame, IMU-mcbf =marker
= Anatomical Landmarks marker calibrated body frame, IMU-mcbf = IMU cali-
IMU marker
brated body frame, and RMC-mcbf = RMC marker calibrated body frame. The sensor-body calibra-
calibrated body frame, and RMC-mcbf = RMC marker calibrated body frame. The sensor-body
tion is based on the different calibration movements(A–C). The hand-eye calibration is based on the
calibration is based on the different calibration movements(A–C). The hand-eye calibration is based
marker compass measurement. The marker calibrated body frame calibration is based on a static
on the marker compass measurement. The marker calibrated body frame calibration is based on a
trial.
static trial.
2.4.
2.4.Data
DataAnalysis
Analysis
After
Afterdata
dataprocessing,
processing,six
sixdifferent
differentbody
bodyframes
frames(IMU-scbfA,
(IMU-scbfA,IMU-scbfB,
IMU-scbfB,IMU-scbfC,
IMU-scbfC,
IMU-mcbf,
IMU-mcbf, RMC-mcbf, and AL-mcbf) are described relative to theglobal
RMC-mcbf, and AL-mcbf) are described relative to the globalframe
framefor
foreach
each
body segment. Table 1 shows the comparisons between the frames that
body segment. Table 1 shows the comparisons between the frames that were made.were made.
As described in the introduction, there were three main sources of error between
IMUs and an optoelectronic system: the definition of the body frames, the soft tissue
artefact (STA), and the orientation filter. In comparison #1–3 the same measurements
were used to compute the orientation of the body segments. However, since different
sensor-body calibration methods were used, the difference in these comparisons is the error
caused by the definition of the body frames. In comparison #4 the frames were constructed
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 7 of 18

from measurements of the optoelectronic system and were therefore not influenced by
the orientation filter. In addition, the frames were calibrated to the same body frame.
Consequently, comparison #4 entails the relative motion between the body frames obtained
using the markers on bony landmarks and the body frames obtained using the rigid marker
cluster with a rigid connection to the IMU. This relative motion is caused by the STA. In
comparison #5, there was a rigid connection between the IMU and the RMC preventing
the influence of STA. Additionally, because both frames were aligned, no error from the
definition of the body frames was present. Therefore, the error found in comparison #5
was the error caused by the orientation filter. In comparison #6 the orientations obtained
from the IMUs were expressed in the same body frame as the orientations obtained from
the markers on bony landmarks, ruling out the error of body frame definitions. Therefore,
the difference was the combined error of the orientation filter and the STA. In comparison
#7–9 the IMU body frames were calibrated based on the calibration movements (A–C).
Therefore, the difference in these comparisons included the error caused by the definition
of the local frames, the STA, and the orientation filter.

Table 1. Comparisons between the different body frames and the error that the difference between
frames describes.

Comparisons Frame 1 Frame 2 Error

#1 IMU-scbfA IMU-mcbf Error definition body frames A
#2 IMU-scbfB IMU-mcbf Error definition body frames B
#3 IMU-scbfC IMU-mcbf Error definition body frames C
#4 RMC-mcbf AL-mcbf Soft Tissue Artefact
#5 IMU-mcbf RMC-mcbf Error orientation filter
#6 IMU-mcbf AL-mcbf Error orientation filter + Soft Tissue Artefact
#7 IMU-scbfA AL-mcbf Total error with calibration A
#8 IMU-scbfB AL-mcbf Total error with calibration B
#9 IMU-scbfC AL-mcbf Total error with calibration C

Each comparison was described by the rotation quaternion between the two frames.
From this quaternion the smallest rotation between the two frames was calculated in
degrees. For each trial the root mean square difference (RMSD) of the smallest angle
between the frames was calculated. For each subject the mean over five repetitions of all
nine different trials was calculated. Subsequently, the mean and standard deviation (STD)
of the RMSD over all subjects was calculated for each trial and each body segment. A three-
way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons were performed
to assess the effects of movement type, intensity, and body segment (3 movement types x
3 intensities x 5 segments) on the STA errors, orientation filter errors, the total errors. A
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied if the assumption of sphericity was not met.
The significance level was set at p < 0.05 and effect size was calculated as eta squared (η2 ).

3. Results
3.1. Definition Body Frames
Figure 4 shows the RMSD and STD of the error of the definition of the body frames
for calibration A, B, and C. The error of the definition of the body frames was constant over
time and thus constant for all trials of each subject. No calibration method significantly
outperformed the others. The errors ranged between 11.3 and 18.7 degrees RMSD. All
three calibration methods showed large between subject variability with a STD of up to
8.8 degrees.
 Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 8 of 18

All three calibration methods showed large between subject variability with a STD of up
to 8.8 degrees.

Figure 4. Error
Figure 4. Error of the definition of the
of the definition
body of theRoot-mean-square
frames. body frames. Root-mean-square
differences differences
(RMSD)(RMSD)
of all of all
body segments for the three different calibrations, see Figure 3 for calibration movements.
body segments for the three different calibrations, see Figure 3 for calibration movements.
3.2. Soft Tissue Artefact
3.2. Soft Tissue Artefact
The repeated measures ANOVA results of the effects on the errors caused by STA
The repeated measures
are shownANOVA in Table 2. results of the
Movement effects
type, on the
intensity, anderrors
segment caused
were allbysignificant
STA are main
shown in Table 2. Movement
effects. Thetype,
resultsintensity, and segment
of all Bonferroni wereand
post-hoc tests allthe
significant
results of amain
singleeffects.
subject were
included post-hoc
The results of all Bonferroni in the Appendix
tests A.andThe RMSD
the of the
results ofSTA rangedsubject
a single from 3.8were
degrees on the pelvis
included
in the Appendix A. Theduring
RMSD the walk
of thetrial,
STA to 9.1 degrees
ranged fromon the
3.8 right
degreesthighon during the sprint
the pelvis trial. the
during Figure 5
shows the error caused by the STA plotted over time for each trial of a random subject. In
walk trial, to 9.1 degrees on the right thigh during the sprint trial. Figure 5 shows the error
the top right corner of each plot, the mean RMSD overall body segments and the maxi-
caused by the STA plotted
mum error over time for in
are displayed each trialItof
degrees. cana be
random
seen thatsubject.
the STA isInnotthe top right
a constant offset or
corner of each plot, the
white mean
noise,RMSD
but that overall
the errorbody
is verysegments
much time and the maximum
dependent. error trials,
For the squatting are the
displayed in degrees.STAIt can
arisesbeduring
seen that the STA
the flexion is knees,
of the not a both
constant
beforeoffset or and
push-off white noise,
after landing but for the
that the error is verysquat
much jumps.
timeFor the walk, run,
dependent. Forand
thesprint trial, thetrials,
squatting STA shows
the STAa cyclic pattern
arises related to
during
the gait cycle. The shooting trials display a spike of the left thigh before ball contact and a
the flexion of the knees, both before push-off and after landing for the squat jumps. For
spike of the right thigh directly after ball contact. The spike before ball contact is caused
the walk, run, and sprint
by thetrial, theofSTA
landing showsleg,
the stance a cyclic pattern
the spike related
after ball contactto by
thethe
gait
ballcycle.
contact The and the
shooting trials display a spike
swing through of of
thetheleft thighleg.
shooting before ball contact
The maximum errorand a spike
in time of the
occurred right
during the shot
thigh directly after ball
trial contact.
on the right Thethighspike before
and was 34.4 ball contact is caused by the landing of
degree.
the stance leg, the spike after ball contact by the ball contact and the swing through of the
shooting leg. The maximum error in time occurred during the shot trial on the right thigh
and was 34.4 degree.

Table 2. Significance and effect size of main and interaction effect of movement type, intensity, and
segment on the root-mean-square difference of the error caused by the soft tissue artefact (STA), the
orientation filter, and the total error. Insignificant effects were denoted with an asterisk (*).

Error STA Error Orientation Filter Total Error

Effects: p η2 p η2 p η2
Movement type <0.001 0.100 <0.001 0.201 <0.001 0.046
Intensity <0.001 0.052 <0.001 0.066 <0.001 0.008
Segment <0.001 0.154 0.018 0.104 0.604 * 0.040
Movement type: Intensity <0.001 0.042 <0.001 0.063 0.046 0.003
Movement type: Segment <0.001 0.132 0.006 0.055 <0.001 0.038
Intensity: Segment 0.750 * 0.004 <0.001 0.019 <0.001 0.008
Movement type: Intensity: Segment 0.001 0.025 0.003 0.012 <0.001 0.009
Sensors 2022,Sensors
22, 9765
2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
9 of 18

FigureFigure 5. Error
5. Error caused
caused bybythe
thesoft
soft tissue
tissue artefact,
artefact,plotted for each
plotted trial over
for each trialtime of time
over a typical
of asubject.
typical subject.
In the top right corner of each plot the root-mean-square difference (RMSD) across all body seg-
In the top right corner of each plot the root-mean-square difference (RMSD) across all body segments
ments and maximum error are displayed in degrees. The vertical dashed line represents a specific
and maximum
moment in error
time: Aare displayed
= push in degrees.
off, B = landing, Thecontact.
C = ball vertical dashed line represents a specific moment
in time: A = push off, B = landing, C = ball contact.

3.3. Orientation Filter

The repeated measures ANOVA results of the effects on the errors caused by the
orientation filter are shown in Table 2. Movement type, intensity, and segment were all
significant main effects. The RMSD of the error caused by the orientation filter ranged from
3.0 degrees on the left shank during the squat trial to 12.7 degrees on the left shank during
the sprint trial. Figure 6 shows the error caused by the orientation filter plotted over time
for the same subject and the same trials as in Figure 5. The error caused by the orientation
filter is highly time dependent. The error over time consists of a constant offset of around
1 degree, some high frequency behavior around moments of impact and some low frequency
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 10 of 18

behavior related to movement. For the squatting trials, the error of the orientation filter
arises during the flexion of the knees, both before push-off and after landing for the squat
jumps. For the walk, run, and sprint trial, the error of the orientation filter shows a cyclic
pattern related to the gait cycle. The shooting trials display high frequency behavior around
the moment of ball contact. A relationship between movement intensity and maximum
Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
error in time is visible. The maximum error in time occurred during the shot trial on the
right shank and was 41.2 degrees.

Figure 6. Error
Figure ofofthe
6. Error the orientation filter,
orientation filter, plotted
plotted for trial
for each eachover
trial over
time of atime ofsubject.
typical a typical
The subject.
exact The
exactsame
sametrails were
trails wereused as inasFigure
used 5. In the
in Figure topthe
5. In right
topcorner
rightofcorner
each plot the root-mean-square
of each dif-
plot the root-mean-square
ference (RMSD) across all body segments and maximum error are displayed in degrees. The vertical
difference (RMSD) across all body segments and maximum error are displayed in degrees. The
dashed line represents a specific moment in time: A = push off, B = landing, C = ball contact.
vertical dashed line represents a specific moment in time: A = push off, B = landing, C = ball contact.
Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 11 of 18

3.4. Total Error

3.4. Total
FigureError
7 shows the mean RMSD and STD for each of the sources of error, for the
combined error of thethe
Figure 7 shows STA and the
mean RMSD orientation
and STD filter,
for and
eachfor
of the
thetotal error,
sources ofaveraged
error, forover
the
all trials. To reduce the amount of displayed data, the error of the definition
combined error of the STA and the orientation filter, and for the total error, averaged of the body
over
frames
all trials.and the total
To reduce theerror is only
amount displayeddata,
of displayed for sensor-body
the error of thecalibration
definition A.ofThe
the mean
body
RMSD and the
frames STDtotal
of the combined
error error of the
is only displayed forSTA and the orientation
sensor-body calibrationfilter and
A. The of the
mean total
RMSD
errorSTD
and are of
also shown
the for each
combined trial
error in the
of the STAAppendix A.
and the orientation filter and of the total error
are also shown for each trial in the Appendix A.

Figure 7.7. Root-mean square differences (RMSD) and standard deviations for each of the sources of
error, and total error,
error, and total error, for
for all
all body
body segments,
segments, mean
mean over
over all
all trials.
trials. The
The error
error of
of the
the definition
definition of
of the
the
body frames and the total error is displayed for calibration
body frames and the total error is displayed for calibration A. A.

4. Discussion
The
The goal
goalof ofthis
thisstudy
studywaswastoto
present
presenta method
a method to quantify
to quantify the the
sources
sourcesof body segment
of body seg-
orientation
ment orientation errorserrors
in human motion
in human analysis
motion withwith
analysis IMUs. In addition,
IMUs. In addition, thethe
influence of
influence
different sensor-body calibration methods, different movements, and
of different sensor-body calibration methods, different movements, and movement inten- movement intensities
on theon
sities sources of error
the sources of were
error studied. The sources
were studied. of error
The sources of were
error quantified
were quantifiedby comparing
by com-
the
paringIMUs theagainst an optoelectronic
IMUs against system.system.
an optoelectronic It should be noted
It should that the
be noted thatoptoelectronic
the optoelec-
system is not aisgold
tronic system not standard in all cases
a gold standard in alland therefore
cases the results
and therefore thewere described
results by root-
were described
mean-square differences (RMSD) instead of root-mean-square
by root-mean-square differences (RMSD) instead of root-mean-square error. Another im-error. Another important
notion
portantisnotion
that because the goal the
is that because of this study
goal was
of this to get
study wasa complete insight ininsight
to get a complete the different
in the
sources of error, no error minimization techniques were used
different sources of error, no error minimization techniques were used on the IMU on the IMU data. In current
data.
literature
In currentthis is not the
literature thiscase.
is notFurthermore, unlike current
the case. Furthermore, unlikeliterature,
current this study this
literature, described
study
the orientation
described of body segments
the orientation of body instead of joint
segments angles.
instead of This
joint choice
angles.wasThis also madewas
choice to get a
also
greater
made toinsight in the different
get a greater insight insources of error,
the different since joint
sources angle
of error, errors
since comprise
joint the errors
angle errors com-
of
prise the errors of the IMU on the body segment proximal to the joint and the errorson
the IMU on the body segment proximal to the joint and the errors of the IMU of the
the
body
IMU on segment
the bodydistal to the distal
segment joint. to the joint.
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 12 of 18

4.1. Definition Body Frames

The definition of the body frames was the largest source of error for the IMUs. The
high between subject variability shows that there are subject specific factors that cause
a difference. This difference could arbitrarily be attributed to either the IMUs or the
optoelectronic system, depending on which one is chosen as the gold standard. The high
between subject variability could be caused by the inconsistent execution of the calibration
movements, or by inconsistent anthropometry or marker placement, which would influence
the marker calibrated body frames.
A study by Robert-Lachaine et al. [3] also compared the defined body frames of IMUs
with an optoelectonic system. The results ranged from 2.5 to 7.0 degrees RMSE of the joint
Euler angles of the lower extremities. This considerably smaller error could be explained by
the fact that this study used the Xsens MVN model. The MVN model uses a combination
of static postures, anthropometric measures, and boundary conditions to define body
frames [25].
The used method in this study was able to quantify the error of the definition of the
body frames. The definition of the body frames with IMUs could possibly be improved
by using models, such as the Xsens MVN model. However, the great advantage of IMUs
is their ease of use, easy placement method, and short set-up time. Therefore, there exists
a trade-off between the accuracy of the definition of the body frames and practicality for
each specific application. However, as shown in current study, differences in the method
to define body frames can lead to relatively large differences in estimated body segment
orientations. A standardized method for body frame definitions using IMUs would allow
for better comparison between studies.

4.2. Soft Tissue Artefact

High frequency STA was seen at moments of impact, such as the landing of the squat
jumps and around the moment of ball contact for the shooting trials. However, especially
for the squat trials, the range of motion had a much larger influence on the RMSD of the
STA. This part of the STA is caused by skin sliding and is related to the flexion or extension
of a joint close to the IMU. This can be seen in Figure 5 by the high STA of the pelvis during
the squat trials, during which there is lower back flexion. In all other trails there is little or
no lower back flexion, and thus less STA on the pelvis.
A limitation of the current method is that the STA is quantified relative to an optoelec-
tronic system, of which the markers also suffer from STA. Gold standard STA quantification
techniques require either the surgical placement of bone pins [26] or the use of medical
imaging techniques, such as fluoroscopy [27]. However, these techniques are highly un-
suitable for dynamic activities. Consequently, there is no available literature regarding
STA in dynamic sports activities to compare present results to. Since the markers of the
optoelectronic system are placed on bony landmarks, and the IMUs somewhere on the
middle of a segment, the relative STA between the two systems was assumed to be a good
approximation of the absolute STA of the IMUs. Another limitation of the current method is
that the IMUs were placed in the RMCs. This increases the mass of the object fixated on the
skin, and because part of the STA is caused by inertia, the STA is likely to be overestimated
in this study.
To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first study to quantify the STA
during dynamic activities and the first study to quantify the STA of IMUs. The used method
was able to show the dependence of STA on movement type, movement intensity, and
body segment. However, the noted limitations should be taken into consideration when
interpreting the absolute values of the results. Yet, the low within subject variability (see
Appendix A, Figure A5) does indicate good repeatability of the method.

4.3. Orientation Filter

Although there was high variability in the results, a dependency of the error of the
orientation filter on movement type, intensity, and segment was shown. However, the
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 13 of 18

within subject variability was much lower (the results of a single subject are displayed in the
Appendix A, see Figure A6). This indicates that the high variability is caused by between
subject factors. The main factor is expected to be the use of different IMUs. Although all
IMUs were both initialized and calibrated in the same way, a difference in performance
was noticed. In Figure 6, the error caused by the orientation filter could be split up in a
constant offset, low frequency behavior, and high frequency behavior. The constant offset
and the low frequency behavior could have different causes, including the misalignment
of the sensors within the IMU or noise in sensor measurements. Furthermore, despite
careful sensor calibration procedures, small biases in the sensor measurements may still
have been present or may have reappeared after calibration. The high frequency behavior
is expected to be caused by moments of impact, such as landing after a squat jump or
around the moment of ball contact. During these moments, the body segments undergo
substantial accelerations, making the direction of the resultant acceleration measured by the
accelerometers no longer aligned with gravity. In addition, potential distortions in the local
magnetic field could have contributed to orientation filter errors because the assumption
that the magnetometer measures the earth’s magnetic field only is no longer met.
A study by Cavallo et al. [28] used a robotic arm to quantify the error of different
orientation filters. For slow rotations (18 degrees/s) the Madgwick filter had an error
of 5.13 degrees RMSE and 7.07 degrees RMSE for fast rotations (45 degrees/s). Since,
in this study, the IMU was only rotated, the influence of linear accelerations was not
captured. Furthermore, during the sprint trials, angular velocities of up to 1000 degrees/s
were measured, which are of a far larger magnitude than the study by Cavallo et al. [28].
Another difference with the current study is that a robotic arm was used as gold standard
instead of an optoelectronic system. At dynamic moments of impact and high accelerations,
there were gaps in the marker data, which were filled using gap fill algorithms. Especially
for dynamic movements, the use of these gap fill algorithms, but also the use of low pass
filters, could lead to a reduction of the actual peak orientations. However, based on the low
within subject variability (see Appendix A, Figure A6) and the agreement in magnitude
with previous studies, we are confident that with present method we were be able to
quantify the error caused by the orientation filter.

4.4. Total Error

The total error captured the combined effect of each of the three individual errors.
Additionally, the combined effect of the STA and the error caused by the orientation filter
was quantified. The combined effect was approximately the square root of the square of the
individual errors, for both the combined effect of the STA and orientation filter, and for the
total error. This implies that the individual errors are roughly independent of one another.
A study by Wilmes et al. [7] validated IMUs with an optoelectronic system for a range
of dynamic football movements. Across all movements, an average error of 5.3 degrees
RMSD was reported for knee flexion/extension angles and 8.0 degrees RMSD for hip
flexion/extension angles. These lower RMSDs are expected to be caused by the use of filter
techniques on the IMU data. In the current study, no filtering techniques were used to get
insight in the complete error caused by the different sources. Another difference is the use
of joint angles instead of segment orientations.

5. Conclusions
This study showed a method to quantify the different sources of body segment orien-
tation errors of human motion analysis with IMUs. During dynamic football activities, the
errors of definition of the body frames ranged from 11.3 to 18.7 degrees RMSD, the STA
errors ranged from 3.8 to 9.1 degrees RMSD, and the error caused by the orientation filter
ranged from 3.0 to 12.7 degrees RMSD. The type of movement, movement intensity, and
body segment, were found to have a significant effect on the errors. Future studies should
take these errors into account since they influence IMU-based human motion analysis.
In addition, this study highlights the importance of standardizing the methods to define
 and body segment, were found to have a significant effect on the errors. Future studies
should take these errors into account since they influence IMU-based human motion anal-
ysis. In addition, this study highlights the importance of standardizing the methods to
define body frames with IMUs. Furthermore, both raw data and the data processing
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 14 oppor-
scripts of the current study were openly published to give other researchers the of 18

tunity to optimize their own data processing methods, and to quantify the performance
of different data processing methods.
body frames with IMUs. Furthermore, both raw data and the data processing scripts of the
currentContributions:
Author study were openly published to give
conceptualization, E.W.,other
H.K.researchers the opportunity
and F.C.T.v.d.H.; to optimize
methodology, E.W. and
theirsoftware,
H.K.; own data processing
E.W. and H.K.;methods,
validation,and
E.W.toand
quantify the performance
H.K..; formal of different
analysis, E.W. and H.K.;data
investi-
processing
gation, methods.
E.W. and H.K.; resources, F.C.T.v.d.H.; data curation, H.K.; writing—original draft prepara-
tion, E.W. and H.K.; writing—review and editing, E.W. and F.C.T.v.d.H.; visualization, E.W. and
H.K.; supervision,
Author Conceptualization,
F.C.T.v.d.H.;
Contributions: E.W., H.K. andE.W.;
project administration, F.C.T.v.d.H.;
funding methodology,
acquisition,E.W. and H.K.;All
F.C.T.v.d.H.
software,
authors E.W.
have andand
read H.K.;agreed
validation,
to theE.W. and H.K.;
published formalof
version analysis, E.W. and H.K.; investigation, E.W.
the manuscript.
and H.K.; resources, F.C.T.v.d.H.; data curation, H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.W. and
Funding: This study is and
H.K.; writing—review partediting,
of the research
E.W. andprogramme
F.C.T.v.d.H.;“Citius Altius E.W.
visualization, Sanius”
and with
H.K.;project number
supervision,
P16-28 project 6, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
F.C.T.v.d.H.; project administration, E.W.; funding acquisition, F.C.T.v.d.H. All authors have read and
agreed to theReview
Institutional published version
Board of the manuscript.
Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki, and approved by the local ethics committee
Funding: This study is part of the research programme of the Sanius”
“Citius Altius VU Amsterdam (VCWE-2019-
with project number
070R1).
P16-28 project 6, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Informed Consent
Institutional ReviewStatement: Informed
Board Statement: Theconsent was
study was obtainedinfrom
conducted all subjects
accordance involved
with the in the
Declaration
study.
of Helsinki, and approved by the local ethics committee of the VU Amsterdam (VCWE-2019-070R1).
Data Availability
Informed ConsentStatement:
Statement:The data and
Informed Matlab
consent wasscripts forfrom
obtained the data processing
all subjects steps
involved in that support
the study.
the findings of this study are openly available in Zenedo at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6610795
Data Availability Statement: The data and Matlab scripts for the data processing steps that support
(accessed on 12 September 2020).
the findings of this study are openly available in Zenedo at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6610795
(accessed on 9 December
Acknowledgments: 2022). would like to thankfully acknowledge the Dutch Royal Football
The authors
Association (KNVB) for facilitating
Acknowledgments: The authors would the research programme
like to thankfully by giving access
acknowledge to their
the Dutch research
Royal Footballfacil-
ities.
Association (KNVB) for facilitating the research programme by giving access to their research facilities.
Conflicts
Conflicts of Interest: The
of Interest: Theauthors
authors declare
declare no conflicts
no conflict of interest.
of interest. The funders
The funders hadinno
had no role therole in the
design
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or manu-
script;
in theor in the decision
decision to publishtothe
publish
results.the results.

Appendix
AppendixA
A

Figure A1. Error caused by the soft tissue artefact. Mean root-mean-square differences (RMSD) and
standard deviations for all body segments and all trials. Significant differences within each trial
between body segments are displayed by letters above the bar, LS, RS, LT, RT, and P mean a significant
difference with the left shank, right shank, left thigh, right thigh, and pelvis, respectively. Significant
differences between trails are displayed with a letter above the mean bar. A = squat, B = squat jump
50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F = sprint, G = pass, H = cross and I = shot.
 Figure A1. Error caused by the soft tissue artefact. Mean root-mean-square differences (RMSD) and
Figure A1. Error
standard caused for
deviations by the
all soft
body tissue artefact.
segments andMean root-mean-square
all trials. differenceswithin
Significant differences (RMSD) andtrial
each
standard deviations for all body segments and all trials. Significant differences within
between body segments are displayed by letters above the bar, LS, RS, LT, RT, and P mean a signif- each trial
between body segments
icant difference are left
with the displayed
shank, by letters
right above
shank, left the bar,right
thigh, LS, RS, LT,and
thigh, RT, pelvis,
and P mean a signif-Sig-
respectively.
icant difference with the left shank, right shank, left thigh, right thigh, and pelvis,
nificant differences between trails are displayed with a letter above the mean bar. A = squat, respectively. Sig-B =
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 nificant
squat jump 50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F = sprint, G = pass, H = cross and I B
differences between trails are displayed with a letter above the mean bar. A =
15squat,
of 18 =
= shot.
squat jump 50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F = sprint, G = pass, H = cross and I = shot.

Figure A2. Error of the orientation filter. Mean root-mean-square differences (RMSD) and standard
Figure A2.A2.
Figure
deviations Error
forof
Error the
allof the
body orientation
segmentsfilter.
orientation filter.
and allMean
Mean root-mean-square
root-mean-square
trials. differences
differences
Significant differences (RMSD)
(RMSD)
within and
each and standard
standard
trial between body
deviations
deviationsfor all
for body
all body segments
segments and
and all
all trials.
trials. Significant
Significant differences
differences within
within each each
segments are displayed by letters above the bar, LS, RS, LT, RT, and P mean a significant differencetrialtrial between
between body body
segments
segments
with areleft
the displayed
are displayed bybyletters
shank, right letters
shank,aboveleft the
above bar,right
the bar,
thigh, LS,RS,
LS, RS, LT,
LT,
thigh, RT,
RT, and
and and P mean
P mean
pelvis, a significant
a significant
respectively. difference
difference
Significant differ-
with the
with left
the shank,
left shank, right
right shank,
shank, left
left thigh,
thigh, right
right thigh,
thigh, and and pelvis,
pelvis, respectively.
respectively. Significant
Significant
ences between trails are displayed with a letter above the mean bar. A = squat, B = squat jump 50%, differences differ-
ences
C =between
between
squattrailstrails
jump are are displayed
displayed
100%, withwith
D = walk, a letter
Ea =letter
run, F = above
above the
G =mean
the mean
sprint, bar. A
pass, bar. A = squat,
H== squat,
cross IB==shot.
B = squat
and squat
jumpjump50%, 50%,
C =Csquat jump
= squat jump100%,
100%, DD= =walk,
walk,EE==run,run,FF == sprint,
sprint, GG== pass,
pass,HH==cross
cross and
and I =Ishot.
= shot.

A3. Combined
Figure A3.
Figure Combinederror errorof of
thethe
softsoft
tissue artefact
tissue and the
artefact andorientation filter. Mean
the orientation filter.root-mean-
Mean root-mean-
Figure
square differences (RMSD) and standard deviations for all body segments andMean
A3.
square Combined
differences error
(RMSD) of
and the soft
standard tissue artefact
deviations for and
all the
body orientation
segments and filter.
all trials. root-mean-
allSignificant
trials. Significant
square differences
differences (RMSD)
within each and
trial standard
between body deviations
segments for
are all body
displayed segments
by letters
differences within each trial between body segments are displayed by letters above the and
above all trials.
the bar, Significant
LS, RS,
bar, LS, RS,
differences
LT, RT,
LT, RT,andwithin
and each
P mean
P mean trial between
a significant
a significant bodywith
difference segments
difference the are left
left the
with shank,displayed
right by
shank,
shank, letters
leftshank,
right above
thigh, leftthe
right bar,
thigh,
thigh, LS, RS,
and
right thigh,
LT,and
RT, pelvis,
and
pelvis, P mean a
respectively. significant
Significant difference
differences with
between the left
trails areshank, right
displayed shank,
with a left
letter thigh,
above
respectively. Significant differences between trails are displayed with a letter above the theright
mean thigh,
andbar.
pelvis,
A = respectively.
squat, B = squat Significant
jump 50%,differences
C = squat jumpbetween
100%,trails are displayed
D = walk, E = run, Fwith a letter
= sprint, G = above
pass, the
H = cross and I = shot.
Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 mean bar. A = squat, B = squat jump 50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F16=ofsprint,
18 G=
pass, H = cross and I = shot.
mean bar. A = squat, B = squat jump 50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F = sprint, G =
pass, H = cross and I = shot.

Figure
Figure
FigureA4.A4.Total
Totalerror
Total errorwith
error sensor-body
withsensor-body
with calibration
sensor-bodycalibration
calibration A.A. A.Mean
MeanMean root-mean-square
root-mean-square
root-mean-square differences
differences
differences (RMSD)
(RMSD)
(RMSD)
and
andstandard
and standarddeviations
standard deviationsfor
deviations for all
forall body
allbody segments
bodysegments
segments and
and
and all
allall trials.
trials.
trials. Significant
Significant
Significant differences
differences
differences within
within
within eacheach each
trial trialtrial
between
between bodysegments
betweenbody
body segmentsare
segments are
are displayed
displayed
displayed by by
by letters
letters
letters above
aboveabove the
the bar, bar,
theLS,bar,LS,
RS,LS,RS,
LT, RT,LT,
RS, RT,
LT,
and and
PRT,
mean Pa mean
and P meana signif-
significanta signif-
icant
icant difference
difference
difference with
with with
the leftthe
the left shank,
left
shank, shank, right shank,
rightleft
right shank, shank, left
thigh,left thigh,
rightthigh, right
thigh, right
andthigh,
thigh,
pelvis,andand pelvis, respectively.
pelvis,
respectively. Significant Sig-Sig-
respectively.
nificant
nificant differences
differences
differences between
betweenbetween
trails trails are
trails
are displayedare with
displayed
a letterwith
displayed withaathe
above letter
letter above
mean bar. the
above =mean
Athe mean
squat,bar.
B= A =Asquat,
bar.
squat = squat,
jump B =B =
squat
squat jump
jump 50%,
50%, CC == squat
squat jump
jump 100%,
100%, DD == walk,
walk, EE == run,
run,F F = sprint,
= sprint,G
50%, C = squat jump 100%, D = walk, E = run, F = sprint, G = pass, H = cross and I = shot. G= pass,
= H
pass, =
H cross
= crossand I
and = shot.
I = shot.

Figure A5. Error caused by the soft tissue artefact of a typical subject. Mean root-mean-square
Figure A5. Error caused by the soft tissue artefact of a typical subject. Mean root-mean-square dif-
differences (RMSD) and standard deviations for all body segments and all trials.
ferences (RMSD) and standard deviations for all body segments and all trials.
Figure A5. Error caused by the soft tissue artefact of a typical subject. Mean root-mean-square dif-
ferences (RMSD) and standard deviations for all body segments and all trials.
Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 19
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 17 of 18

Figure A6. Error caused by the orientation filter of a typical subject. Mean root-mean-square
Figure A6. Error caused by the orientation filter of a typical subject. Mean root-mean-square differ-
differences
ences (RMSD)(RMSD) and standard
and standard deviations
deviations for all for
bodyall segments
body segments
and alland all trials.
trials.

References
References
1. Ancillao, A. Stereophotogrammetry in Functional Evaluation: History and Modern Protocols. In Modern Functional Evaluation
1. Ancillao, A. Stereophotogrammetry in Functional Evaluation: History and Modern Protocols. In Modern Functional Evaluation
Methods for Muscle Strength and Gait Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–29.
Methods for Muscle Strength and Gait Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–29.
2. Lopez-Nava, I.H.; Munoz-Melendez, A. Wearable inertial sensors for human motion analysis: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2016,
2. Lopez-Nava, I.H.; Munoz-Melendez, A. Wearable inertial sensors for human motion analysis: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16,
16, 7821–7834. [CrossRef]
7821–7834.
3. Robert-Lachaine, X.; Mecheri, H.; Larue, C.; Plamondon, A. Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic
3. Robert-Lachaine, X.; Mecheri, H.; Larue, C.; Plamondon, A. Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic
system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2017, 55, 609–619. [CrossRef]
system for whole-body motion analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2017, 55, 609–619.
4. Leardini, A.; Lullini, G.; Giannini, S.; Berti, L.; Ortolani, M.; Caravaggi, P. Validation of the angular measurements of a new
4. Leardini, A.; Lullini, G.; Giannini, S.; Berti, L.; Ortolani, M.; Caravaggi, P. Validation of the angular measurements of a new
inertial-measurement-unit based rehabilitation system: Comparison with state-of-the-art gait analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014,
inertial-measurement-unit based rehabilitation system: Comparison with state-of-the-art gait analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014,
11, 136. [CrossRef]
11, 136.
5. Peruzzi, A.; Della Croce, U.; Cereatti, A. Estimation of stride length in level walking using an inertial measurement unit attached
5. Peruzzi, A.; Della Croce, U.; Cereatti, A. Estimation of stride length in level walking using an inertial measurement unit attached
to the foot: A validation of the zero velocity assumption during stance. J. Biomech. 2011, 44, 1991–1994. [CrossRef]
to the foot: A validation of the zero velocity assumption during stance. J. Biomech. 2011, 44, 1991–1994.
6. Teufl, W.; Miezal, M.; Taetz, B.; Fröhlich, M.; Bleser, G. Validity of inertial sensor based 3D joint kinematics of static and dynamic
6. Teufl, W.; Miezal, M.; Taetz, B.; Fröhlich, M.; Bleser, G. Validity of inertial sensor based 3D joint kinematics of static and dynamic
sport and physiotherapy specific movements. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213064. [CrossRef]
sport and physiotherapy specific movements. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213064.
7. Wilmes, E.; de Ruiter, C.J.; Bastiaansen, B.J.; Zon, J.F.v.; Vegter, R.J.; Brink, M.S.; Goedhart, E.A.; Lemmink, K.A.; Savelsbergh, G.J.
7. Wilmes, E.; de Ruiter, C.J.; Bastiaansen, B.J.; Zon, J.F.v.; Vegter, R.J.; Brink, M.S.; Goedhart, E.A.; Lemmink, K.A.; Savelsbergh,
Inertial sensor-based motion tracking in football with movement intensity quantification. Sensors 2020, 20, 2527. [CrossRef]
G.J. Inertial sensor-based motion tracking in football with movement intensity quantification. Sensors 2020, 20, 2527.
8. Bergamini, E.; Guillon, P.; Camomilla, V.; Pillet, H.; Skalli, W.; Cappozzo, A. Trunk inclination estimate during the sprint start
8. Bergamini, E.; Guillon, P.; Camomilla, V.; Pillet, H.; Skalli, W.; Cappozzo, A. Trunk inclination estimate during the sprint start
using an inertial measurement unit: A validation study. J. Appl. Biomech. 2013, 29, 622–627. [CrossRef]
using an inertial measurement unit: A validation study. J. Appl. Biomech. 2013, 29, 622–627.
9. Morrow, M.M.; Lowndes, B.; Fortune, E.; Kaufman, K.R.; Hallbeck, M.S. Validation of inertial measurement units for upper body
9. Morrow, M.M.; Lowndes, B.; Fortune, E.; Kaufman, K.R.; Hallbeck, M.S. Validation of inertial measurement units for upper
kinematics. J. Appl. Biomech. 2017, 33, 227–232. [CrossRef]
body kinematics. J. Appl. Biomech. 2017, 33, 227–232.
10. Morton, L.; Baillie, L.; Ramirez-Iniguez, R. Pose calibrations for inertial sensors in rehabilitation applications. In Proceedings of
10. Morton, L.; Baillie, L.; Ramirez-Iniguez, R. Pose calibrations for inertial sensors in rehabilitation applications. In Proceedings of
the 2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob),
the 2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob),
Lyon, France, 7–9 October 2013; pp. 204–211.
Lyon, France, 7–9 October 2013; pp. 204–211.
11. Palermo, E.; Rossi, S.; Marini, F.; Patanè, F.; Cappa, P. Experimental evaluation of accuracy and repeatability of a novel body-to-
11. Palermo, E.; Rossi, S.; Marini, F.; Patanè, F.; Cappa, P. Experimental evaluation of accuracy and repeatability of a novel body-
sensor calibration procedure for inertial sensor-based gait analysis. Measurement 2014, 52, 145–155. [CrossRef]
to-sensor calibration procedure for inertial sensor-based gait analysis. Measurement 2014, 52, 145–155.
12. Teufl, W.; Lorenz, M.; Miezal, M.; Taetz, B.; Fröhlich, M.; Bleser, G. Towards inertial sensor based mobile gait analysis: Event-
12. Teufl, W.; Lorenz, M.; Miezal, M.; Taetz, B.; Fröhlich, M.; Bleser, G. Towards inertial sensor based mobile gait analysis: Event-
detection and spatio-temporal parameters. Sensors 2018, 19, 38. [CrossRef]
detection and spatio-temporal parameters. Sensors 2018, 19, 38.
13. De Vries, W.; Veeger, H.; Cutti, A.; Baten, C.; Van Der Helm, F. Functionally interpretable local coordinate systems for the upper
13. De Vries, W.; Veeger, H.; Cutti, A.; Baten, C.; Van Der Helm, F. Functionally interpretable local coordinate systems for the upper
extremity using inertial & magnetic measurement systems. J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 1983–1988.
extremity using inertial & magnetic measurement systems. J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 1983–1988.
14. Favre, J.; Aissaoui, R.; Jolles, B.M.; de Guise, J.A.; Aminian, K. Functional calibration procedure for 3D knee joint angle description
14. Favre, J.; Aissaoui, R.; Jolles, B.M.; de Guise, J.A.; Aminian, K. Functional calibration procedure for 3D knee joint angle descrip-
using inertial sensors. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 2330–2335. [CrossRef]
tion using inertial sensors. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 2330–2335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.025.
15. Peters, A.; Galna, B.; Sangeux, M.; Morris, M.; Baker, R. Quantification of soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion analysis:
15. Peters, A.; Galna, B.; Sangeux, M.; Morris, M.; Baker, R. Quantification of soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion anal-
A systematic review. Gait Posture 2010, 31, 1–8. [CrossRef]
ysis: A systematic review. Gait Posture 2010, 31, 1–8.
16. Cereatti, A.; Bonci, T.; Akbarshahi, M.; Aminian, K.; Barré, A.; Begon, M.; Benoit, D.L.; Charbonnier, C.; Dal Maso, F.; Fantozzi, S.
Standardization proposal of soft tissue artefact description for data sharing in human motion measurements. J. Biomech. 2017,
62, 5–13. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 9765 18 of 18

17. Madgwick, S.O.; Harrison, A.J.; Vaidyanathan, A. Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, Switzerland, 29 June–1 July 2011.
[CrossRef]
18. De Vries, W.; Veeger, H.; Baten, C.; Van Der Helm, F. Magnetic distortion in motion labs, implications for validating inertial
magnetic sensors. Gait Posture 2009, 29, 535–541. [CrossRef]
19. de Ruiter, C.J.; van Dieën, J.H. Stride and step length obtained with inertial measurement units during maximal sprint acceleration.
Sports 2019, 7, 202. [CrossRef]
20. Cappozzo, A.; Catani, F.; Della Croce, U.; Leardini, A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: Anatomical
frame definition and determination. Clin. Biomech. 1995, 10, 171–178. [CrossRef]
21. Wu, G.; Siegler, S.; Allard, P.; Kirtley, C.; Leardini, A.; Rosenbaum, D.; Whittle, M.; D’Lima, D.D.; Cristofolini, L.; Witte, H. ISB
recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part I: Ankle,
hip, and spine. J. Biomech. 2002, 35, 543–548. [CrossRef]
22. Kok, M.; Schön, T.B. Magnetometer calibration using inertial sensors. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 5679–5689. [CrossRef]
23. Tedaldi, D.; Pretto, A.; Menegatti, E. A robust and easy to implement method for IMU calibration without external equipments.
In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China, 31 May–7
June 2014; pp. 3042–3049.
24. Hol, J.D. Sensor Fusion and Calibration of Inertial Sensors, Vision, Ultra-Wideband and GPS; Linköping University Electronic Press:
Linköping, Sweden, 2011.
25. Roetenberg, D.; Luinge, H.; Slycke, P. Xsens MVN: Full 6DOF human motion tracking using miniature inertial sensors. Xsens
Motion Technol. BV Tech. Rep. 2009, 1, 1–7.
26. Houck, J.; Yack, H.J.; Cuddeford, T. Validity and comparisons of tibiofemoral orientations and displacement using a femoral
tracking device during early to mid stance of walking. Gait Posture 2004, 19, 76–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Gao, B.; Conrad, B.; Zheng, N. Comparison of skin error reduction techniques for skeletal motion analysis. J. Biomech. 2007,
40, S551. [CrossRef]
28. Cavallo, A.; Cirillo, A.; Cirillo, P.; De Maria, G.; Falco, P.; Natale, C.; Pirozzi, S. Experimental comparison of sensor fusion
algorithms for attitude estimation. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2014, 47, 7585–7591. [CrossRef]