Skip to main content
Advertisement

< Back to Article

Discovering individual-specific gait signatures from data-driven models of neuromechanical dynamics

Fig 5

Data-driven gait dynamics model predicts non-linear changes in joint kinematics with gait speed.

Gait predictions of joint kinematics (green) at intermediate gait speeds not used in model training were generated by interpolating gait signatures between slow (dashed grey) and fast speeds (dashed black) lines and using them to drive the gait model. Interpolated kinematics from gait dynamics (green) and interpolated directly from kinematics (blue) were compared to the measured reference kinematics (black solid). A) Predictions in an exemplar AB participant are more accurate when interpolating gait signatures compared to interpolating gait kinematics across speeds. B) In an exemplar low-functioning stroke survivor, interpolated gait signatures predict nonlinear changes in kinematics better at intermediate speeds than interpolated gait kinematics. Averaging the kinematics fail in this case where there are larger differences between the slow and fast speed paretic kinematics; the averaged kinematics (blue) follow the fast speed paretic hip kinematics whereas the other angles do not reflect waveforms that resemble either the fast or slow speed. The gait model can therefore predict movement reasonably well when interpolating between tested speeds. There is a statistically significant difference between group level R2 comparisons (kinematics generated from interpolated dynamics vs interpolated kinematics) in the able-bodied (C) but not in stroke (D) cohorts. However, the range of R2 values are larger in both able-bodied and stroke kinematic predictions resulting from interpolated kinematics (-1.30–0.98, -0.50–1.00 respectively) vs. predicted from interpolated gait dynamics (-0.20–1.00,0.46–1.00 respectively). Thus, while the R2 values may not improve on average for the stroke survivors, the model’s performance is more robust overall.

Fig 5

doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011556.g005