Beyond timing and step counting in 360° turning-in-place assessment: a scoping review

Abstract

Background: Turning in place is a challenging motor task and is used as a brief assessment test of lower limb function and dynamic balance. This review aims to examine how research of instrumented analysis of turning in place is implemented. In addition to reporting the studied population, we covered acquisition systems, turn detection methods, quantitative parameters, and how these parameters are computed. Methods: Following the development of a rigorous search strategy, the Web of Science and Scopus were systematically searched for studies involving the use of turning-in-place. From the selected articles, the study population, types of instruments used, turn detection method, and how the turning-in-place characteristics were calculated. Results: Twenty-one papers met the inclusion criteria. The subject groups involved in the reviewed studies included young, middle-aged, and older adults, stroke, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease patients. Inertial measurement units (16 studies) and motion camera systems (5 studies) were employed for gathering measurement data, force platforms were rarely used (2 studies). Two studies used commercial software for turn detection, six studies referenced previously published algorithms, two studies developed a custom detector, and eight studies did not provide any details about the turn detection method. The most frequently used parameters were mean angular velocity (14 cases, 7 studies), turn duration (13 cases, 13 studies), peak angular velocity (8 cases, 8 studies), jerkiness (6 cases, 5 studies) and freezing-of-gait ratios (5 cases, 5 studies). Angular velocities were derived from sensors placed on the lower back (7 cases, 4 studies), trunk (4 cases, 2 studies), and shank (2 cases, 1 study). The rest (9 cases, 8 studies) did not report sensor placement. Calculation of the freezing-of-gait ratio was based on the acceleration of the lower limbs in all cases. Jerkiness computation employed acceleration in the medio-lateral (4 cases) and antero-posterior (1 case) direction. One study did not reported any details about jerkiness computation. Conclusion: This review identified the capabilities of turning-in-place assessment in identifying movement differences between the various subject groups. The results, based on data acquired by inertial measurement units across studies, are comparable. A more in-depth analysis of tests developed for gait, which has been adopted in turning-in-place, is needed to examine their validity and accuracy.