Gait Analysis Lab

Write Up
By: Josh Franks, Matthew Sargent,
Thomas Towey, Jillian Seymour

Table of Contents:
1. Abstract/ Introduction and Method
2. Method Continued and Data
3. Data Josh
4. Data Matt
5. Data Thomas
6. Thomas Data Continued and Results
7. Results, Discussion, References
8. References and Appendix
Abstract / Introduction:

Gait is described as a person’s specific manner of walking. Everyone walks

differently, with many distinctive motions they tend to do while walking. Various factors
in their life such as past injury, physical disability, and many other factors make
individuals walk in that specific way.
Some main differences in the way people walk are due to the pressure on each
foot when stepping and the posture in which they stand when they are walking.
Individuals with different heights and weights also move differently as these factors help
dictate the pressure and stress placed on joints.
Sometimes, we can recognize certain people by the way they move or even just
hearing them walk. When you get really familiar with a person, you can tell the
difference between them walking and other people walking just by the sound of their
steps. This proves that gait analysis is both visual and auditory. Differences in gaits can
help identify people because the brain can associate a certain person with the way their
walk looks or sounds.
There are many things that are noticeable when a person walks. Some of the
initial things are their overall posture, stride length, hinge in the hip, and knee angle.
Each of these things are different for each person. That is why law enforcement uses
Gait technology at times.
Gait testing provides tons of data to be analyzed. By taking video and
downloading an app to help diagnose data we can collect, the speed, hip angle, chest
height, hip height, and many other things would be useful data . This data can then be
plotted on a graph or data table that will make it more clear to the readers diagnosing
the data.
Beyond this general data, there is also specific leg data to be collected. We can
collect data about the speed, movement, and flexibility of each leg, collected from joints
and flexibility of certain parts on the leg. This will then be able to be processed and
graphed for viewing.

Method:

During this project we used the physics toolbox accelerometer to collect and
track the data that we needed to focus on the trends and models that were needed to
bring this project together. The data was collected by taping an iPhone to the subject's
back who would be walking with the app downloaded and opened so the g-force data
could be collected. Each subject walked a total of 10 feet walking outside of the STEM
classroom. The subjects differed in height, weight, and leg length, as shown below.
 We first took the measurements of each subject walking in with the gait analysis
app. Then each subject went outside and collected the data that was needed in the 10
foot walk. The data was then transported between google drive and google sheets so
that graphs could be made and models could be drawn. With this data collected we then
came to our conclusion and created a model that worked with the trends found in the
graphs and data tables.

Data:

Matt’s Walking:

Matt (cm)
height 180.34
hip hsight 104.14
knee height 56
shoulder height 153
hip width 35.56
shoulder width 45.72
arm length 70
Josh’s Walking:

Josh (cm)
height 187.94
hip height 99.06
knee height 58.04
shoulder height 152.4
hip width 39.37
shoulder width 48.26
arm length 69.85
Thomas’ Walking:
 Thomas (cm)
height 172.18
hip height 99.06
knee height 53.34
shoulder height 149.86
hip width 33.02
shoulder width 40.64
arm length 68
Results:
The data that we collected showed many things about our subjects and how they
walked. The three different subjects had three very different heights and three different
leg lengths which we found were the two most crucial elements to determining patterns
in movement and an individual's gait. Even with such a small sample size we can see
the patterns that have developed in the data. As seen in the horizontal movement
graph, the larger the value is, the smaller in height the person should be. This can be
seen with the Thomas (the shortest person) who had the largest median numbers on
the horizontal movement graph. With more time we could have figured out why this was
or had a larger sample size but we were very limited on time due to the airplane training
and other products.
This data also shows a correlation in leg length and the absolute value vs. time
graph. The leg length creates a larger range in the absolute value maximum and
minimum values. This can be seen with Josh (the person with the longest legs) who had
the largest range of absolute value values in the graph. This large range in absolute
values in the graph show a broad swing in stride length. It also shows
overcompensation on the right leg than the left leg. This is due to Josh’s injury that
creates an abnormal gait than many people have. This creates changes in all three of
the graphs but specifically absolute value.
Horizontal distance is the greatest in Matthew’s gait graph. This is confusing and
there is no correlation between his leg or hip height and his stride length. It could have
been because of a bigger bounce in his step but more data would have to be collected
to tell if this is true or not. Matt had the most average measurements among all three
people yet he had the longest stride length which would be an interesting topic to
research in the future.
Finally, the data and results we found from our experiment produced a model
and equation that correlated between the height and weight of a person and the g-force
acting on the person at the time. The equation can be seen on the presentation that we
turned in along with this presentation. The presentation focuses on height, stride length,
and g-force, to create a model that takes the average to find the predicted g-force. The
model was very accurate at predicting this g-force as we predicted that the g-forces
would range from 1-3g’s and this turned out to be true when we tested it. The model
was accurate and we were able to predict g-forces accurately.

Discussion:

Our data proved to be quite intriguing, with many different methods of

interpretation. One trend noticed by our group was height related to G-Force. In Josh’s
results, shown on his G-Force vs. Time graph, the peaks of the graph stretch almost to
2 Gs, with an average of just over 1.5 Gs. Now if we look at Thomas’ data, we find a
much different trend. Thomas’ top G force is just below 1G, with an average of just
below 0.5Gs. This is due to the difference in height. Josh is 187.94cm tall, while
Thomas is 172.18cm tall. This difference in height is a crucial component that helps
dictate an individual’s G-Force while walking.
Another possible explanation for irregularities within our graphs are because of
prior injury. It’s difficult to determine exactly how the graphs change, but certain skews
on Josh’s graph are undeniably caused by his recent knee injury. Ever since his
surgery, there is a slight hitch or limp in his walking that causes inconsistent movement.
This motion is surely reflected within our data.

References:

-Physics Toolbox Accelerometer app developed by Chrystian Vieyra .. From the App Store

-​Bell, Lee. “Running Tech: What Is A Gait Analysis And Why Should Every Runner Have
One?” ​Forbes,​ Forbes Magazine, 3 Oct. 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leebelltech/2018/09/30/running-tech-what-is-a-gait-analysis-and-w
hy-should-every-runner-have-one/#338c51b579bf​.

-“Why Is Gait Analysis Important?” ​Tekscan,​ 9 Aug. 2019,

https://www.tekscan.com/blog/medical/why-gait-analysis-important​.

Appendix:
No additional data is needed to explain our work. Reference writing above for explanation.