Low-Cost Motion Analysis Device: Accuracy of Velocity Measurements during Arm Movements in Comparison With Laboratory System - A Pilot StudyKubicki A1*, Petrement G2, Brost V3 and Yang F3
- *Corresponding Author:
- Kubicki Alexandre
INSERM U1093, Cognition, Action et plasticité sensorimotrice
Université de Bourgogne, France
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: May 06, 2014; Accepted date: May 30, 2014; Published date: June 15, 2014
Citation: Kubicki A, Petrement G, Brost V, Yang F (2014) Low-Cost Motion Analysis Device: Accuracy of Velocity Measurements during Arm Movements in Comparison With Laboratory System - A Pilot Study. Int J Neurorehabilitation 1:107. doi:10.4172/2376-0281.1000107
Copyright: © 2014 Kubicki A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Motion analysis processes are commonly used in the field of motion neurosciences, both with healthy and pathological subjects. Actually, the most used and validated system is the Vicon® (Oxford Metrics Group). This very accurate motion analysis system fits perfectly with laboratory contexts, but its usefulness in a clinical environment is more critical. Indeed, this device is very cumbersome, not wearable and not easy to use for clinicians. To counteract these difficulties in motion clinical analysis, some new innovative devices were proposed in the last years, more wearable, user-friendliness, low-cost, and able to record some interesting kinematic parameters. To test the accuracy of one of these systems, we compared the FX-Move® analysis with that of the Vicon®. To do this we asked three subjects to do slow and fast upper-limb reaching movements, and plotted both FX-Move® and Vicon® velocity measurements to calculate the concordance of their results. This analysis revealed a high accuracy between systems, but only until a maximal velocity threshold of 4 ms-1. Spearman coefficients were higher for data recorded for slow movements, under to the 4 ms-1 threshold (Mean r2 was 0.992 for the 3 subjects) than for data recorded for rapid arm raising movements, up to the 4 ms-1 threshold (Mean r2 was 0.715 for S1 and S2). According the well-documented motor slowing-down of impaired patients, we suggest that this motion analysis device could be used in a clinical context.