1478 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 52, NO.
8, AUGUST 2005
A New Approach to Accurate Measurement of
Uniaxial Joint Angles Based on a Combination
of Accelerometers and Gyroscopes
Hooman Dejnabadi*, Brigitte M. Jolles, and Kamiar Aminian, Member, IEEE
AbstractA new method of measuring joint angle using a combi-
nation of accelerometers and gyroscopes is presented. The method
proposes a minimal sensor configuration with one sensor module
mounted on each segment. The model is based on estimating the ac-
celeration of the joint center of rotation by placing a pair of virtual
sensors on the adjacent segments at the center of rotation. In the
proposed technique, joint angles are found without the need for in-
tegration, so absolute angles can be obtained which are free from
any source of drift. The model considers anatomical aspects and
is personalized for each subject prior to each measurement. The
method was validated by measuring knee flexion-extension angles
of eight subjects, walking at three different speeds, and comparing
the results with a reference motion measurement system. The re-
sults are very close to those of the reference system presenting very
small errors (rms = 1 3, mean = 0 2, SD = 1 1 deg ) and
excellent correlation coefficients (0.997). The algorithm is able to
provide joint angles in real-time, and ready for use in gait anal-
ysis. Technically, the system is portable, easily mountable, and can
be used for long term monitoring without hindrance to natural
activities.
Index TermsAccelerometer and gyroscope, ambulatory
system, biomechanics, gait analysis, joint angle.
I. INTRODUCTION
G AIT analysis has become a widely used clinical tool, and
an increasing number of clinicians are choosing suitable
treatments for their patients based on the information from kine-
matic and kinetic data [1], [2]. It also provides an effective tool
for evaluating and quantifying the effects of a surgical interven-
tion [3][5].
A complete gait analysis system uses an optical motion
system for kinematic data combined with force platforms for
kinetic data. These systems are expensive, require a large
space and cannot be used outside a laboratory environment.
The capture volume is also limited to a few gait cycles. With
Manuscript received May 21, 2004; revised October 31, 2004. This work was
supported in part by the Swiss National Foundation under Grant FNRS 3200-
064951. Asterisk indicates corresponding author.
*H. Dejnabadi is with the Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL),
Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, 1015 Lausanne, Switzer-
land (e-mail: hooman.dejnabadi@epfl.ch).
B. M. Jolles is with the University of Lausanne (CHUV), Hpital Or-
thopdique de la Suisse Romande, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland (e-mail:
brigitte.jolles@chuv.hospvd.ch).
K. Aminian is with the Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL),
Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, 1015 Lausanne, Switzer-
land (e-mail: kamiar.aminian@epfl.ch).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TBME.2005.851475
0018-9294/$20.00 2005 IEEE
the progress of new technologies, powerful microcontrollers,
miniature sensors, high capacity memories and small bat-
teries have been developed; allowing to realize low-power and
portable recording systems carried by the subject for long-term
ambulatory measurements. Therefore there has been much
activity in trying to find alternative solutions for capturing gait
information over a larger distance and outside a laboratory
environment. During the last decade, body-mounted sensors
consisting of accelerometers and/or rate gyroscopes have been
used to obtain kinematic values such as shank and thigh in-
clination angles, and knee joint angle [6], [7]. These data can
be derived by integration of angular acceleration or angular
velocity. However, data obtained from integration can be dis-
torted by offsets or any drifts [8], [9]. The two major sources
of drift are: 1) Electronic bias error [10], and 2) Deviation and
turning out from the sensing axis. To eliminate any drift during
integration, Morris [11] identified the beginning and the end of
the walking cycles, and made the signal at the beginning and
the end of the cycle equal. Tong et al. [2] applied a low-cut
high-pass filter on the shank and thigh inclination angle signals.
Time-frequency analysis (Wavelet Transform) was also applied
to lower limb angular velocity in order to remove the drift [3].
However, all of these methods remove the dc and low frequency
information of angles.
Willemsen et al. [9] developed a technique to measure human
joint flexion-extension angle without the need for integration,
which used four accelerometers on each segment. The system
used two metal bars with eight accelerometers for measuring a
single joint angle. Heyn et al. [12] showed that shank and thigh
inclination angles can be measured with eight accelerometers
and two gyroscopes fixed on two rigid metal plates as well. They
also found that using these metal plates was cumbersome.
This paper presents a new method to estimate flexion-
extension angles based on a combination of accelerometers
and gyroscopes. The number of sensor units has been opti-
mized to one unit on each segment. The model is based on
estimating acceleration of the joint center of rotation. Since it
is not physically possible to place accelerometers at the joint
center of rotation, virtual sensors are used by mathematically
shifting the location of the physical sensors. To minimize the
error, it is necessary to obtain accurate positions of the physical
and virtual sensors. Therefore, the model was personalized by
including anthropometric data and the position of the sensors
obtained by photography.
DEJNABADI et al.: ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF UNIAXIAL JOINT ANGLES 1479

For analytical convenience, human body segments were con-

sidered as rigid bodies. The main strategy in analyzing the mo-
tion of a rigid body was to split the motion into the linear motion
of the noninertial reference point , and the angular motion of
the segment about it. Thus, the relationship between the phys-
ical and virtual sensors readings could be expressed as

(4)

where and are physical 2-D accelerometer readings;

and are virtual accelerometer readings. and are axis
rotation matrices of the physical and virtual sensors in relation to
the direction of vector by angles and , respectively. These
rotations align both physical and virtual coordinate systems to
the direction of line.
The first term in the right-hand side of (4) considers the effect
of a linear motion, and the second term expresses the effect of
a pure rotation about point . The latter term can be expanded
into components aligned with and normal to (unit vectors
and )

Fig. 1. A physical sensor module at point P , and a virtual sensor module on (5)
point C on a 2-D rigid body. Each sensor module consists of 2-D accelerometers
and a gyroscope.
where and are the first and second derivatives of angle of
with respect to a fixed inertial frame.
II. METHODS The two latter parameters can be measured by the gyroscope
A. Model Description placed at point . The virtual gyroscope reading at point will
Considering the two-dimensional (2-D) model of a segment also give the same signal [2]. So considering and equal to
motion (Fig. 1), a sensor module including a biaxial accelerom- and , respectively, (4) can be rearranged to yield the virtual ac-
eter and a gyroscope was placed at point on the segment. celerometer readings with respect to known physical accelerom-
The first step was to calculate the expected signals of a virtual eters and gyroscope readings
sensor module placed at an arbitrary point on the bone seg-
ment with an arbitrary orientation with respect to the physical (6)
sensor module. The vector indicates the distance, and the
angles and represent the orientations of the physical and The next step was to calculate joint angle between two
virtual sensors with respect to . segments using two modules of sensors mounted on each seg-
To estimate the virtual signals, a description of the outputs of ment (Fig. 2). Thus, the two physical sensor modules on each
the sensors was required. A single axis accelerometer measures segment were shifted to the joint center, or more precisely the
the difference of acceleration and gravity along its sen- center of rotation point, such that each virtual sensor aligns with
sitive axis given by the unit vector . The measured electrical its corresponding segment orientation. Since one point should
signal ( ) could thus be expressed as physically have a unique acceleration, the two virtual sensors
meeting at the center of rotation should give equal accelerations.
(1) However, the correction for coordinate frames rotation by angle
should be considered
Similarly, by considering a 2-D accelerometer with sensitive
(7)
axes along and , the two measured signals were given by
where and are virtual ac-
celerometers readings at point on segments 1 and 2, respec-
(2) tively. These vectors can be rewritten in polar representation

The angular velocity of the segment was obtained by mea-

suring the rate of change of the unit vector (8)
where and represent for modulus and argument of ; and,
(3) thus, (7) can be rewritten to yield joint angle

This parameter could directly be measured by a gyroscope

with its sensitive axis perpendicular to the plane of motion. (9)
1480 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 52, NO. 8, AUGUST 2005

and kinematic sensors. Any arbitrary point in the images (e.g.,

top-left pixel) can be defined as the coordinate reference. The
accelerometers readings during standstill were used to estimate
the sensors orientation with respect to horizontal plane. These
information were used to calculate the angles , , , ,
and the lengths of and .
The position of the center of rotation (C) was also better ad-
justed based on the geometric relationship between the positions
of marker and sensor at the two different positions. Since
the shank is stationary, any point on thigh always lies on the
circle they form with the knee joint being the center. In this case,
the line connecting two different positions of the same point at
the two different trials is always perpendicular to the line drawn
from the joint to their midpoint [13]

(10)

where the indexes and indicate the sensor and marker on

thigh in the first trial [Fig. 3(b)], and and in the second
Fig. 2. Position of sensors on thigh and shank, and their corresponding virtual trial [Fig. 3(c)], respectively. Consequently, the modified coor-
sensors on the knee joint center of rotation. dinates of point was obtained

B. Test Protocol
Eight healthy subjects, who had given informed consent, par-
ticipated in this experiment, five men and three women, aged (11)
between 44 and 70 yr . The volunteers per-
formed three 30 s flat treadmill walking trials at speeds 2, 3, and
4 km/h, wearing their basket shoes. One of the subjects was also The angle was obtained from the dot product formula
requested to perform a freely arbitrary flexion and extension of
knee, such as sitting, standing, and swinging. (12)
To calculate the knee angle (flexion-extension) using the
proposed model, two sensor modules, each containing two
accelerometers and one gyroscope, were used. The sensors where , and
(dimension: ) were mounted on .
the left shank and thigh segments using a strap [Fig. 3(a)]. The The angle was obtained by calculating the difference be-
sensing axes were adjusted in the anterior-posterior plane so tween inclination angles of the kinematic sensor and the
that the flexion-extension angle could be measured. All signals
vector
were sampled at 200-Hz using the Physilog [BioAGM, CH]
ambulatory system carried on the waist [6].
Before the walking trials, three small markers were pasted (13)
over the left lateral malleolus , the lateral epicondyle ( ),
and the junction of the first and second proximal lateral third of where and are averages of the 2D accelerometer read-
the thigh [Fig. 3(b)]. Then each subject was asked to stand ings during the standstill trial.
in two positions at extended [Fig. 3(b)] and flexed [Fig. 3(c)] left Similarly, the values of and were obtained by changing
knee positions, while the shank was kept stationary. At each po- all indices 1 to 2 in (12) and (13).
sition the subject stayed for a few seconds ( 5 s) at standstill, For comparison, a Zebris CMS-HS (Zebris, D) ultra-
while the system was recording kinematic parameters, a lateral sound-based motion measurement system was used as the
view photograph was taken as well. The cameras image plane reference system [14]. Three Zebris markers were used that
was adjusted to be in parallel with sagittal plane to avoid per- were attached over the same adhesive markers ( , , and
spective errors. The position and orientation of the camera was C). Spatial marker positions (x, y, z) were recorded with an
kept constant so that the two photos would have the same field absolute accuracy better than 1.0 mm [15], [16] and used for
of view. The known length of the metal frame (70 cm height) calculation of knee flexion-extension angle. Synchronization
was used to calibrate the photos from pixels to metric units (cm). between the reference system and the Physilog systems was
Theses images were used to estimate the coordinates of markers performed automatically.
DEJNABADI et al.: ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF UNIAXIAL JOINT ANGLES 1481

Fig. 3. (a) Attachment of the kinematic sensors on both thighs and shanks using straps. The kinematic data are recorded by the Physilog system (dimensions
13 cm 2 7 cm 2 3 cm, weight: 300 gr) placed in the waist bag. (b) Sagittal view of a subject with extended left knee and (c) with flexed left knee, representing
the sensor configurations. The white circles indicate the position of markers (M , C and M ), and the white squares indicate the position of kinematic sensors (P
and P ).

C. Data Analysis
Matlab was used for all signal processing. A third-order
SavitzkyGolay filter [17] was applied to smooth the ac-
celerometers and gyroscopes signals. Anthropometry data
obtained by photography were also fed to the model to estimate
the expected virtual sensors readings shifted to the knee center
of rotation.
For comparison with the reference system, the error signal
was defined as the difference between the angle obtained by the
proposed method and the reference system.
Statistical analyses comprised rms, mean, and standard devia-
tion of difference error, as well as correlation coefficient calcula-
tions between the joint angles obtained by the proposed method
and the reference systems data.

III. RESULTS
Figs. 47 show the steps of calculating knee angle of
subject no. 8 during a flat walking at 3 km/h. Fig. 4 shows
the physical accelerometers and gyroscopes (raw data) read-
ings placed on thigh and shank. Fig. 5 shows the virtual
accelerometers readings placed at the knee center of rotation
on the adjacent segments. Fig. 6 shows the polar representa-
tion (modulus, argument) of the same virtual accelerometers,
as well as the difference between the two moduli signals
. Since both and express
the accelerations of the same point , the value of the difference
is very small . Fig. 7(a) shows the final step
yielding the knee angle calculated from the difference between
the two argument signals
Fig. 7(b) shows the knee angle calculated from position data as
Fig. 4. Physical accelerometers and gyroscopes (raw data) readings during
walking at 3 km/h. The site on thigh consists of two accelerometers (S and
S ) and a gyroscope (! ). Similarly, there are two accelerometers (S and
S ) and a gyroscope (! ) on shank module.
measured by the reference system, and difference error between
the two results.
Fig. 8 shows also the final step of calculating knee angle and
its comparison with the reference system during a freely arbi-
trary flexion and extension of knee (
, ).
The whole results are summarized in Table I, which outlines
. the mean and standard deviation of difference errors, together
with the calculated correlation coefficients of eight subjects. The
1482 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 52, NO. 8, AUGUST 2005
Fig. 5. Virtual accelerometers readings placed at the knee center of rotation on
the adjacent segments. S and S are biaxial virtual accelerometers on thigh.
Correspondingly, S and S are biaxial virtual accelerometers on shank. The
signals are calculated from the raw signals shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 6. Polar representation (modulus, argument) of the virtual accelerometers
calculated from the signals shown in Fig. 5. S and S are complex vectors equal
to [S S ] and [S S ] , respectively. The top-right figure shows also the
0
difference between the two moduli signals (modulus(S ) modulus(S ))
in dashed line.
Fig. 7. (a) Knee angle calculated from the difference between the two
argument signals shown in Fig. 6. (argument(S ) 0 argument(S )).
(b) Calculated from position data as measured by the reference system (solid
line), and difference error between the two results (dashed line).
average rms error is 1.30 degrees ( , )
and the average correlation coefficient is 0.997.
Fig. 8. Absolute knee angle during a freely arbitrary flexion and extension
of knee. (a) Calculated from the new accelerometers and gyroscopes settings.
(b) Calculated from position data as measured by the reference system (solid
line), and difference error between the two results (dashed line).
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The proposed method based on body-fixed sensors gave an
accurate estimation of knee flexion-extension angles. Though
the paper has focused on the use of body-fixed sensors for mea-
suring knee flexion-extension angle, the method can be applied
to measure other joint angles like elbow (by attaching sensors
on arm and forearm). Although multiaxial measurement is more
powerful, in many cases a simple uniaxial measurement can be
effective as well, giving a lot of information for pathologies re-
lated to knee.
The results of all tests (Table I) were very close to those of the
reference system presenting small errors in rms (1.30 ), mean
(0.20 ) and standard deviation (1.1 ) of the difference signal, re-
flecting accurate and precise estimations, respectively; and ex-
cellent correlation coefficient values (0.997) reflecting highly
linear response.
In comparison with the previous methods using metal plates
[9] which were cumbersome and needed 4 fixation sites of sen-
sors, the proposed method used a minimal sensor configuration
with one fixation site on each segment. In addition, our method
is more accurate and more precise, since the reported mean error
in [9] is 2.9 , and standard deviation of error ranges from 2.3
to 5.1 .
Other authors reported joint angle measurement by inte-
grating gyroscopes and accelerometers [2], [3], [11]. How-
ever, data obtained from integration can be distorted by offset
or any drift, so additional filtering or assumptions based on
cyclic nature of gait are required for drift canceling that will
also remove the dc and low frequency information of angles.
In contrast to other studies where the relative knee angle was
estimated, in this paper the absolute joint angle was found
without the need of integration with the advantage to be free
from any source of drift. In addition, no assumption based on
cyclic nature of gait is made in the model, so the knee joint
angle can be obtained for any freely arbitrary movements as
it was shown in Fig. 8.
DEJNABADI et al.: ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF UNIAXIAL JOINT ANGLES
TABLE I
COMPARISON BETWEEN KNEE ANGLE MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED BY BODY-MOUNTED SENSORS AND ZEBRIS MARKERS FOR 8 SUBJECTS AT
3 SPEEDS. THE ERROR REPRESENTS THE rms, MEAN AND SD OF THE DIFFERENCE SIGNAL BETWEEN ZEBRIS AND OUR MEASURING DEVICE.
r REPRESENTS THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN THE TWO MEASURING SYSTEMS
Since the angle computation needs simple multiplications and
derivative operations, this system is able to provide real-time
knee angle for any type of activity. So the clinicians are able to
view joint angle motion as the subject performs the prescribed
activity, or generally it can be used in many other applications
that require real-time feedback.
Unlike electrogoniometers, the proposed system provides
also anterior-posterior rotations and linear accelerations of
thigh and shank independently, which can further be used
for a better estimation of lower limbs kinematics. Based on
its MEMS technology, gyroscopes and accelerometers also
offer a cheaper and more practical solution to the cumbersome
electrogoniometer link over the knee as well [18], [19].
The proposed model considers anatomical aspects of each
subject prior to each measurement that leads to higher accuracy
in the results. In this way, a better orientation of bone segments
(femur and tibia) can be estimated from the sensors placed on
the skin as it was described in Fig. 2 and (10)(12).
However, there are some limitations in the model due to as-
suming the joint center of rotation as a fixed position point, and
segments as rigid bodies. Although the joint center of rotation
changes slightly depending on the knee angle [20], this effect in-
duces very minimal changes in the knee joint angle. The model
allows a uniaxial (flexion-extension) estimation of joint angle;
however it does not constrain the joint motion to take place
in sagittal plane: any flexion-extension even out of the sagittal
plane can be estimated.
Skin motion artefact, a common source of error to all body
mounted devices, affects the measurement accuracy. The thigh
sensor is more susceptible to skin and soft tissue artifact where
the majority of the femur is concealed by a substantial amount
of soft tissue. The effect of skin artefact was minimized by using
adequate elastic band to fix the sensors, and applying low-pass
filtering on the raw signal.
From a practical standpoint, misalignment of the sensors or
sensor deviation during movement reduces the systems accu-
racy. Fortunately, there is a redundant information in the system
which cab be used to check the overall effects of error sources,
1483
but the information is not enough to correct or compensate for
the errors. This information is obtained by checking the error
difference between the moduli signals of the two virtual ac-
celerometers (Fig. 6).
Technically, the system is portable, easily mountable, and it
can also be used for long-term monitoring without hindrance to
the natural gait [6]. In comparison with video-based systems,
this system can be an alternative solution for capturing kine-
matic information over a nonlimited distance and outside a lab-
oratory environment.
The proposed method was found very promising in providing
actual knee flexion-extension angle during daily activities. Al-
though the model proposed estimation of uniaxial joint rota-
tion (i.e., flexion-extension), the principle could be extended to
multiaxial joint rotation by employing 3-D-accelerometers and
3-D-gyroscopes on each site.
Future prospects should consist in estimating lower limb tra-
jectory in daily environment and extending the model to 3-D.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to J. Gramiger and P. Morel in the
design of the ambulatory system; and C. Voracek for her assis-
tance in collecting the data.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Medri, D. Tepavac, B. Needham, and D. Popovic, Comprehensive
gait analysis in spinal cord injured patients with functional electrical
stimulation, in Proc. Ann. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., 1994, pp.
357858.
[2] K. Tong and M. H. Granat, A practical gait analysis system using gy-
roscopes, Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 21, pp. 8794, 1999.
[3] K. Aminian, C. Trevisan, B. Najafi, H. Dejnabadi, C. Frigo, E. Pavan, A.
Telonio, F. Cerati, E. C. Marinoni, P. Robert, and P.-F. Leyvraz, Evalu-
ation of an ambulatory system for gait analysis in hip osteoarthritis and
after total hip replacement, Gait & Posture, vol. 20, pp. 102107, 2004.
[4] R. B. Davis, S. Ounpuu, D. Tyburski, and J. R. Gage, A gait analysis
data collection and reduction tequnique, Hum. Mov. Sci., vol. 10, no. 5,
pp. 7587, 1991.
[5] L. M. Schutte, U. Narayanan, J. L. Stout, P. Selber, J. R. Gage, and M.
H. Schwartz, An index for quantifying deviations from normal gait,
Gait Posture, vol. 11, pp. 2531, 2000.
1484 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 52, NO. 8, AUGUST 2005
[6] K. Aminian, B. Najafi, C. Bla, P.-F. Leyvraz, and P. Robert, Spatio-
temporal parameters of gait measured by an ambulatory system using
miniature gyroscopes, J. Biomech., vol. 35, pp. 689699, 2002.
[7] R. E. Mayagoitia, A. V. Nene, and P. H. Veltink, Accelerometer and rate
gyroscope measurement of kinematics: an inexpensive alternate to op-
tical motion analysis systems, J. Biomech., vol. 35, pp. 537542, 2002.
[8] K. Aminian and B. Najafi, Capturing human motion using body-fixed
sensors: outdoor measurement and clinical applications, J. Visual
Comput. Animat. Comput. Animation and Virtual Worlds, vol. 15, pp.
7994, 2004.
[9] A. T. M. Willemsen, J. A. Van Alste, and H. B. K. Boom, Real-time
gait assessment utilizing a new way of accelerometry, J. Biomech., vol.
23, no. 8, pp. 859863, 1990.
[10] D. H. Titterton and J. L. Weston, Strapdown Inertial Navigation Tech-
nology. Stevenage, U.K.: Peregrinus, 1997, pp. 178179.
[11] J. R. W. Morris, Accelerometerya technique for the measurement
of human body movements, J. Biomech., vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 2936,
1973.
[12] A. Heyn, R. E. Mayagoitia, A. V. Nene, and P. H. Veltink, The kine-
matics of the swing phase obtained from accelerometer and gyroscope
measurements, in Proc. 18th Ann. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.,
vol. 2, 1996, pp. 463464.
[13] K. Halvorsen, M. Lesser, and A. Lundberg, A new method for esti-
mating the axis of rotation and the center of rotation, J. Biomech., vol.
32, pp. 12211227, 1999.
[14] R. M. Kiss, L. Kocsis, and Z. Knoll, Joint kinematics and spatial-tem-
poral parameters of gait measured by an ultrasound-based system, Med.
Eng. Phys., vol. 26, pp. 611620, 2004.
[15] H. M. Overhoff, D. Lazovic, M. Liebing, and C. Macher, Total
knee arthroplasty: coordinate system definition and planning based on
3-D ultrasound image volumes, in Proc. 5th Annu. Conf. Int. Soc.
Computer-Aided Surgery, vol. 1230, Int. Congress Series, 2001, pp.
292299.
[16] Zebris Medizintechnick GmbH, Measuring System for 3D-Motion
Analysis CMS-HS, Tech. Data and Operating Instructions Text Release
8/99, 1999.
[17] A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay, Analyt. Chem., vol. 36, pp. 16271639,
1964.
[18] C. M. Myles, P. J. Rowe, C. R. C. Walker, and R. W. Nutton, Knee
joint functional range of movement prior to and following total knee
arthroplasty measured using flexible electrogoniometry, Gait Posture,
vol. 16, pp. 4654, 2002.
[19] A. Shiratsu and H. J. C. G. Coury, Reliability and accuracy of different
sensors of a flexible electrogoniometer, Clin. Biomech., vol. 18, pp.
682684, 2003.
[20] J. D. Moorehead, S. C. Montgomery, and D. M. Harvey, Instant center
of rotation estimation using Reuleaux technique and a lateral extrapola-
tion technique, J. Biomech., vol. 36, pp. 13011307, 2003.
Hooman Dejnabadi received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees in electrical engineering from Sharif Univer-
sity of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1993 and 1996 re-
spectively. He is currently working towards the Ph.D.
degree in biomedical engineering at the Laboratory of
Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Poly-
technique Fidirale de Lausanne (EPFL).
He was with Fara Sanat Shomal Co. and
RadRavesh Co. from 1993 to 2001 as a Research
Engineer on NDT systems. His research interests
include biomedical signal processing, ambulatory
systems, and movement analysis.
Brigitte M. Jolles received the MSc degree in mi-
crotechnology engineering from the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (EPFL) in 1990, the M.D.
degree from University of Lausanne (UNIL) in 1995,
and the specialist degree in orthopedic surgery. She
received the Diploma in Clinical Epidemiology from
the University of Toronto (UofT), Toronto, ON,
Canada, in 2002.
She is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, an Engineer with
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL),
and Assistant Professor at the UNIL. In 2001-2002,
she worked as a Clinical and Research Fellow in the Department of Orthopedic
Surgery at UofT. She became Assistant Professor at UNIL in February 2005.
She is part of the surgeon staff at the Orthopaedic Hospital of the University of
Lausanne and teaches at the pregraduate and postgraduate levels at UNIL and
other institutions. Her research interests include joint arthroplasty and ambula-
tory systems for movement analysis.
Kamiar Aminian (M89) received the electrical
engineering degree in 1982 and the Ph.D. degree
in biomedical engineering in 1989 from Ecole
Polytechnique Fidirale de Lausanne (EPFL).
He worked as a Research Associate in the
Metrology Laboratory, EPFL, and as an Assistant
Professor at Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran. In January 2002, he joined the School
of Engineering of EPFL where he is the Head of
the Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measure-
ment. He teaches in the areas of sensors and medical
instrumentation. His research interests include transducers, movement analysis,
ambulatory systems, and biomedical signal processing