1. Predicting Complete Ground Reaction Forces and Moments During Gait With Insole Plantar Pressure Information Using a Wavelet Neural Network
- Author
-
Hyun Mu Heo, Taeyong Sim, Ahnryul Choi, Kisun Kim, Joung Hwan Mun, Seung Eel Oh, Hyun Bin Kwon, and Su-Bin Joo
- Subjects
Male ,Adolescent ,Wavelet Analysis ,Biomedical Engineering ,Correlation ,Young Adult ,Gait (human) ,Wavelet ,Physiology (medical) ,Pressure ,Humans ,Ground reaction force ,Gait ,Simulation ,Mechanical Phenomena ,Mathematics ,Principal Component Analysis ,Artificial neural network ,Foot ,business.industry ,Plantar pressure ,Pattern recognition ,Biomechanical Phenomena ,Scoliosis ,Multilayer perceptron ,Principal component analysis ,Female ,Neural Networks, Computer ,Artificial intelligence ,business - Abstract
In general, three-dimensional ground reaction forces (GRFs) and ground reaction moments (GRMs) that occur during human gait are measured using a force plate, which are expensive and have spatial limitations. Therefore, we proposed a prediction model for GRFs and GRMs, which only uses plantar pressure information measured from insole pressure sensors with a wavelet neural network (WNN) and principal component analysis-mutual information (PCA-MI). For this, the prediction model estimated GRFs and GRMs with three different gait speeds (slow, normal, and fast groups) and healthy/pathological gait patterns (healthy and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) groups). Model performance was validated using correlation coefficients (r) and the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE%) and was compared to the prediction accuracy of the previous methods using the same dataset. As a result, the performance of the GRF and GRM prediction model proposed in this study (slow group: r = 0.840–0.989 and NRMSE% = 10.693–15.894%; normal group: r = 0.847–0.988 and NRMSE% = 10.920–19.216%; fast group: r = 0.823–0.953 and NRMSE% = 12.009–20.182%; healthy group: r = 0.836–0.976 and NRMSE% = 12.920–18.088%; and AIS group: r = 0.917–0.993 and NRMSE% = 7.914–15.671%) was better than that of the prediction models suggested in previous studies for every group and component (p
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF