journal article·2025-12-02Open access

Characterizing Everyday Locomotion Behaviors in Persons with Lower Limb Loss: A Month-Long Wearable Sensor Study

Julian C. Acasio, Yisen Wang, Katherine Heidi Fehr, Brad D. Hendershot, Peter G. Adamczyk

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 23

Abstract

Monitoring mobility outcomes in real-world environments can provide a distinct perspective compared to traditional outcome measures obtained in laboratory or clinical settings, which may be limited by environmental factors or behavioral modification. Here, we present an ecologically valid framework for collecting mobility outcomes in everyday life by utilizing prosthesis-mounted wearable sensors. The custom sensor suite, consisting of five inertial measurement units, GPS, and environmental sensors, was worn by 14 individuals with unilateral transtibial amputation for approximately 4 weeks each. Across the monitoring period, 49,577 ± 30,468 (mean ± SD) strides were identified per participant (~10.2 sensor-hours per day). Strides were characterized according to walking bout duration, with most walking observed in relatively short walking bouts (<30 s) at slow walking speeds (~0.5 m/s). Turns were identified and characterized by magnitude, direction, strides, and time taken to complete. The percentage of prosthetic-inside turns was around 50% for less than 90° turns, but higher turn angles showed bias toward prosthetic-outside turns, on average. Most individual participants showed bias toward one direction or the other. Participants also averaged ~28.3 stair-steps per sensor-day. Stair-steps were biased toward upstairs (vs. downstairs) walking and toward step-over-step (vs. step-by-step) strategies. Collectively, these data provide a uniquely detailed evaluation of locomotion behaviors among persons with lower limb loss in everyday living. Future work could utilize the ecological framework described here for establishing functional benchmarks, assisting with device prescription, and otherwise guiding long-term care for optimizing mobility outcomes and quality of life after lower limb loss.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics · Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention · Muscle activation and electromyography studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence, Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA

Department of Rehabilitation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

Funding

U.S. Department of Defense · U.S. National Science Foundation · University of Wisconsin–Madison College of Engineering

References (36)

Show source-provided references
1. Estimating Recent US Limb Loss Prevalence and Updating Future Projections
2. (2025, November 19). Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)|CMS, Available online: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/coding-billing/healthcare-common-procedure-system.
3. The Amputee Mobility Predictor: An Instrument to Assess Determinants of the Lower-Limb Amputee’s Ability to Ambulate10.1053/apmr.2002.32309 ↗
4. Effect of Observation on Lower Limb Prosthesis Gait Biomechanics: Preliminary Results10.1177/0309364615605374 ↗
5. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Traumatic Lower Extremity Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1097/GOX.0000000000003920 ↗
6. Activity Levels Among Lower-Limb Amputees: Self-Report Versus Step Activity Monitor10.1016/j.apmr.2007.03.016 ↗
7. Systematic Review on the Application of Wearable Inertial Sensors to Quantify Everyday Life Motor Activity in People with Mobility Impairments10.1186/s12984-020-00779-y ↗
8. Baroudi, L., Newman, M.W., Jackson, E.A., Barton, K., Shorter, K.A., and Cain, S.M. (2020). Estimating Walking Speed in the Wild. Front. Sports Act. Living, 2.10.3389/fspor.2020.583848 ↗
9. Investigating Walking Speed Variability of Young Adults in the Real World10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.08.012 ↗
10. Real-World Gait Bout Detection Using a Wrist Sensor: An Unsupervised Real-Life Validation10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998842 ↗
11. Wearable Sensors Quantify Mobility in People with Lower Limb Amputation During Daily Life10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2990824 ↗
12. Technical Validation of Real-World Monitoring of Gait: A Multicentric Observational Study10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050785 ↗
13. Mellema, M., and Gjøvaag, T. (2022). Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22062243 ↗
14. Non-GPS Navigation for Security Personnel and First Responders10.1017/S0373463307004286 ↗
15. Wang, Y., Chernyshoff, A., and Shkel, A.M. (2018, January 24–27). Error Analysis of ZUPT-Aided Pedestrian Inertial Navigation. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), Nantes, France.10.1109/IPIN.2018.8533814 ↗
16. Solà, J. (2017). Quaternion Kinematics for the Error-State Kalman Filter. arXiv.
17. Wang, W., and Adamczyk, P.G. (2019). Analyzing Gait in the Real World Using Wearable Movement Sensors and Frequently Repeated Movement Paths. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19081925 ↗
18. Wang, Y., Fehr, K.H., and Adamczyk, P.G. (2024). Impact-Aware Foot Motion Reconstruction and Ramp/Stair Detection Using One Foot-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24051480 ↗
19. Kirk, C., Küderle, A., Micó-Amigo, M.E., Bonci, T., Paraschiv-Ionescu, A., Ullrich, M., Soltani, A., Gazit, E., Salis, F., and Alcock, L. (2024). Mobilise-D Insights to Estimate Real-World Walking Speed in Multiple Conditions with a Wearable Device. Sci. Rep., 14.
20. (2025, November 26). Occupational Safety and Health Administration Stairways; 1910.25; 2019, Available online: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.25.
21. Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Walking Velocity, Gait Profile Score and Two Minute Walk Test for Individuals with Lower Limb Amputation10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.06.001 ↗
22. How Humans Walk: Bout Duration, Steps per Bout, and Rest Duration10.1682/JRRD.2007.11.0197 ↗
23. Gait Speed as an Indicator of Prosthetic Walking Potential Following Lower Limb Amputation10.1177/0309364618792723 ↗
24. Differences in the Spatiotemporal Parameters of Transtibial and Transfemoral Amputee Gait10.1097/JPO.0b013e3181cc0e34 ↗
25. Relationships between Dual-Task Related Changes in Stride Velocity and Stride Time Variability in Healthy Older Adults10.1016/j.humov.2006.03.004 ↗
26. Free-living Monitoring of Parkinson’s Disease: Lessons from the Field10.1002/mds.26718 ↗
27. Differences in Preferred Walking Speeds in a Gait Laboratory Compared with the Real World After Total Hip Replacement10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.015 ↗
28. Discrepancies in Walking Speed Measurements Post-Bed-Rest: A Comparative Analysis of Real-World vs. Laboratory Assessments10.1515/teb-2024-0029 ↗
29. Is Every-Day Walking in Older Adults More Analogous to Dual-Task Walking or to Usual Walking? Elucidating the Gaps between Gait Performance in the Lab and during 24/7 Monitoring10.1186/s11556-019-0214-5 ↗
30. Renggli, D., Graf, C., Tachatos, N., Singh, N., Meboldt, M., Taylor, W.R., Stieglitz, L., and Schmid Daners, M. (2020). Wearable Inertial Measurement Units for Assessing Gait in Real-World Environments. Front. Physiol., 11.10.3389/fphys.2020.00090 ↗
31. Locomotor Activities of Individuals with Lower-Limb Amputation10.1097/PXR.0000000000000009 ↗
32. Psychosocial Factors Influence Physical Activity after Dysvascular Amputation: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Study10.1002/pmrj.12466 ↗
33. Validating a Fear-of-falling–Related Activity Avoidance Scale in Lower Limb Prosthesis Users10.1002/pmrj.13063 ↗
34. Zhou, L., Tunca, C., Fischer, E., Brahms, C.M., Ersoy, C., Granacher, U., and Arnrich, B. (2020, January 20–24). Validation of an IMU Gait Analysis Algorithm for Gait Monitoring in Daily Life Situations. Proceedings of the 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9176827 ↗
35. Fehr, K.H., Bartloff, J.N., Wang, Y., Hetzel, S., and Adamczyk, P.G. (2024). Estimation of Minimum Foot Clearance Using a Single Foot-Mounted Inertial Sensor and Personalized Foot Geometry Scan. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-63124-6 ↗
36. Automatic Gait Events Detection with Inertial Measurement Units: Healthy Subjects and Moderate to Severe Impaired Patients10.1186/s12984-024-01405-x ↗