Abstract
Gait analysis can identify injury-risk markers indiscernible to the naked eye. Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based motion capture circumvents optokinetic motion capture (OMC) clinical implementation barriers with its portability, increased affordability, and decreased computational burden. We compared an IMU system to a robust OMC marker set for gait analysis. 10 healthy adults walked at self-selected speeds equipped with Noraxon MyoMotion IMUs and a 24-marker, 5-cluster marker-set in view of 14 OMC cameras. A single calibration was applied. IMU system and OMC calculated joint angles were compared. A single calibration performed similarly to previously reported repeated calibration. IMU and OMC agreement was best in the sagittal plane with IMU axis-mixing affecting off-sagittal plane agreement. System differences were greater than 5° for most motions. Measurement system bias showed at the ankle and knee, however differences varied across participants. IMU kinematics should be interpreted with caution; consistency and accuracy must improve before IMUs can replace OMC.