@article{ref1,
title="A scoping review on minimum foot clearance measurement: sensing modalities",
journal="International journal of environmental research and public health",
year="2021",
author="Delfi, Ghazaleh and Al Bochi, Abdulrahman and Dutta, Tilak",
volume="18",
number="20",
pages="e10848-e10848",
abstract="BACKGROUND: Falls are a major public health issue and tripping is the most common self-reported cause of outdoor falls. Minimum foot clearance (MFC) is a key parameter for identifying the probability of tripping. Optical motion capture systems are commonly used to measure MFC values; however, there is a need to identify alternative modalities that are better suited to collecting data in real-world settings. <br><br>OBJECTIVE: This is the first of a two-part scoping review. The objective of this paper is to identify and evaluate alternative measurement modalities to optical motion capture systems for measuring level-ground MFC. A companion paper identifies conditions that impact MFC and the range of MFC values individuals that these conditions exhibit. <br><br>METHODS: We searched four electronic databases, where peer-reviewed journals and conference papers reporting level-ground MFC characteristics were identified. The papers were screened by two independent reviewers for inclusion. The reporting was done in keeping with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. <br><br>RESULTS: From an initial search of 1571 papers, 17 papers were included in this paper. The identified technologies were inertial measurement units (IMUs) (n = 10), ultrasonic sensors (n = 2), infrared sensors (IR) (n = 2), optical proximity sensors (OPS) (n = 1), laser ranging sensors (n = 1), and ultra-wideband sensors (n = 1). From the papers, we extracted the sensor type, the analysis methods, the properties of the proposed system, and its accuracy and validation methods. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: The two most commonly used alternative modalities were IMUs and OPS. There was a lack of standardization among studies utilizing the same measurement modalities, as well as discrepancies in the methods used to assess performance. We provide a list of recommendations for future work to allow for more meaningful comparison between modalities as well as future research directions.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1661-7827",
doi="10.3390/ijerph182010848",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010848"
}