This document discusses gait analysis for challenged users based on a rollator equipped with force sensors. The methodology section describes how force sensors were placed on a rollator to capture gait data from users in a rehabilitation room. Various gait parameters were then analyzed from the sensor data, including cadence, step time, stride length, and walking velocity. The conclusion section notes advantages of this approach, such as its suitability for a variety of users and validity for monitoring daily activities. However, it also acknowledges disadvantages like lower accuracy and only measuring some gait parameters.

1. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait analysis for challenged users based on a
rollator equipped with force sensors
Joaquin Ballesteros1, Cristina Urdiales1, Antonio B. Martinez2
and Marina Tirado3
1Department of Electronic Technology
University of Malaga, Spain
{jballesteros,acurdiales}@uma.es
2Department of Automatic Control
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain
antonio.b.martinez@upc.edu
3UGC Rehabilitacion
Hospital Regional of Malaga, Spain
mtiradoreyes@gmail.com
1 / 17

2. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Outline
1 Introduction
Gait monitoring
Rollator
2 Methodology
Place
Sensors capture
Gait analysis
3 Conclusion
2 / 17

3. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait monitoring
Gait monitoring
1 Neuropathology: Walking velocity, stride length, cadence,...
2 Orthopaedic lower limbs: Step time, step length,
weight-bearing,...
3 Erderly: Cadence, walking velocity,...
3 / 17

4. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait monitoring
Specific tools
Reo-ambulator
GAITRite System MVN BIOMECH Awinda
Optotrak Certus
4 / 17

5. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Rollator
Minimum requirements established for gait analysis tools
for challenged users
1 Suitable for a variety of
challenged users with a
minimal configuration
changes.
2 It can be used in everyday
conditions and for a long
term monitoring.
5 / 17

6. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Rollator
Rollator
1 Rollator improve the
quatiliy of life and
autonomy of people with
disabilities
2 It is a useful support for
ADL
3 It can be used in everyday
condition and for a long
term monitoring
6 / 17

7. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Rollator
Rollator: i-Walker
It is based on a standar
MEYRA R
rollator frame.
3 force components in
handlebar
Encoders in both wheels
Tilt sensor and 2 forces
sensor for normal force
2D laser (optional)
7 / 17

8. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Rollator
Restrictions to users rollators in our methodology
Present a mil to severe
disability profile
Be able to walk with the
aid of a rollator
Have experience with
rollators, to avoid cold
start related issues
8 / 17

9. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Place
Rehabilitation room in Hospital Regional Universitario of
Malaga: 10 m test
9 / 17

10. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Sensors capture
i-Walker data
s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
N
0
50
100
m
0
5
10
F
Z
left
FZ
right
f
d
10 / 17

11. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait analysis
User gait analysis (Fright
Z - Fleft
Z )
s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
N
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Right Heel
Left Heel
f
diff
11 / 17

12. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait analysis
Gait parameters
Acronyms Units Definition
CAD steps
min
Cadence
SpT s Step Time
SpL m Step Lenght
SdT m Stride Time
SdL m Stride Lenght (Stance phase)
WV m
s
Walking Velocity
WB N−1
Weight-bearing
s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
N
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Right Heel
Left Heel
f
diff
12 / 17

13. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait analysis
How disability affect to gait parameters
Gait Division
Gait Abnormalities
CAD SdT SdL SpT SpL WV WB
Healthy
Men 102(8) 1.18(0.08) 1.39(0.014) 0.59(0.05) 0.69(0.08) 1.17(0.16) −
Women 113(20) 1.06(0.13) 1.23(0.17) 0.53(0.06) 0.61(0.09) 1.16(0.2) −
Antalgic
affected ↓ ↓
↓
non affected - -
Ataxic - ↓ ∨ ↓ ↑ ∨ ↓ ↓
Hypokinetic - ↓ ↓ ∨ ↓
Vestibular ↑ ↓ ↓
Spastic ↓ ↓
Paretic affected
↓ ↑ ↓
↓
↓ ↓ ↓
Non affected -
Cautious - ↓ ↓ ↓
Dyskinetic Involuntary movements or postures, these abnormalities can not be measured consistently.
13 / 17

14. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Gait analysis
Vestibular gait in 86 years old men with Intertrochanteric
hip fracture (Left)
s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
N
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Right Heel
Left Heel
f
diff
14 / 17

15. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
15 / 17

16. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
15 / 17

17. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
15 / 17

18. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
Do not condition users gait as long as they are used passively
15 / 17

19. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
Do not condition users gait as long as they are used passively
15 / 17

20. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
Do not condition users gait as long as they are used passively
Disadvantages
Less accurate and can only measure some parameters
15 / 17

21. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
Do not condition users gait as long as they are used passively
Disadvantages
Less accurate and can only measure some parameters
Challenged user restriction
15 / 17

22. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Conclusion
Advantages
Suitable for a variety of users with a minimal configuration changes
Valid for monitoring during ADL
May spare the user from the burden of wearables
Do not condition users gait as long as they are used passively
Disadvantages
Less accurate and can only measure some parameters
Challenged user restriction
They can measure postures using a external sensors only
15 / 17

23. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
Thank you for your attention
16 / 17

24. Introduction Methodology Conclusion
17 / 17