Fig 1.
Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) inserted into a matched, 3D-printed Rigid Marker Cluster (RMC).
Fig 2.
Marker protocol and IMU placement.
Retroreflective markers attached to the anatomical landmarks and the RMC. IMU are not inserted in the RMC in this schematic picture.
Table 1.
Results of the RMC evaluation.
Table 2.
Results of the ANOVA.
Fig 3.
Coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) of the RMC evaluation.
CMC of the right lower extremity for all functional movements: (a) indicates SQ, (b) indicates SLS, and (c) indicates CMJ.
Fig 4.
Bland-Altman (BA) diagrams of the right knee flexion (a) and abduction (b) for all subjects for the RMC evaluation.
In (a), negative values on the x-axis indicate knee flexion. In (b), negative values on the x-axis indicate knee adduction. The solid line indicates the mean difference, dashed lines indicate ± 1.96 * standard deviation (SD).
Table 3.
Results of the skin marker evaluation.
Fig 5.
The mean difference in RMSE between the RMC evaluation and the skin marker evaluation in all three tasks for all joints (± SD).
Fig 6.
The mean difference in ROME between the RMC evaluation and the skin marker evaluation in all three tasks for all joints (± SD).
Fig 7.
CMC in the skin marker evaluation.
CMC of the right lower extremity for all functional movements: (a) indicates SQ, (b) indicates SLS, and (c) indicates CMJ.
Fig 8.
BA diagrams of the right knee flexion (a) and abduction (b) for all subjects in the skin marker evaluation.
In (a), negative values on the x-axis indicate knee flexion. In (b), negative values on the x-axis indicate knee adduction. The solid line indicates the mean difference, dashed lines indicate ± 1.96 * standard deviation (SD).