Seven approaches to measuring movement, from everyday smartphone use to detailed laboratory biomechanics.
Start with the question you need to answer, then compare the sensing approach, practical burden and evidence for the intended population. These profiles distinguish a product’s measurement role from demonstrated patient benefit. The relevance stars help navigate this library; they are not a ranking of product quality or company performance.
Uses smartphone motion sensors to quantify walking and support remote clinical workflows. Published validation and functional-association studies are linked in our research page. Consider it when phone-based collection suits the intended patients and protocol.
Body-worn inertial sensors quantify gait, turning and balance. APDM’s validation documentation identifies metric-specific comparisons with walkways, force plates or optical systems and distinguishes internal from external evidence.
A pressure-sensitive walkway measures temporospatial footfall parameters during observed walking. Published comparison studies support its measurement role; it is a clinic or laboratory approach rather than continuous everyday monitoring.
Sensor-equipped footwear combines gait analysis with vibrotactile feedback. Magnes publishes work on gait-event identification and freezing-of-gait measurement; its Parkinson’s projects should be evaluated by study design rather than testimonials.
Wearable foot sensors and analysis tools support protocol-based gait measurement. A published comparison against optical motion analysis provides evidence for selected spatiotemporal outputs; verify the exact sensor generation.
Full-body inertial motion capture supports biomechanical analysis. Its gait-report white paper explains derived outputs and reporting. A technical capability statement is not evidence of improved patient outcomes.
Wireless muscle-activity recordings complement gait kinematics by examining activation timing and coordination. Its clinical research resources include orthotics and neurological applications; EMG and step metrics answer different questions.
Stars indicate editorial relevance to clinicians and researchers using this library: 5 = foundational or broadly applicable; 4 = directly useful for a defined question; 3 = specialist or emerging application; 2 = indirect relevance; 1 = background context. They are not journal impact factors, evidence-certainty grades, product comparisons or estimates of clinical benefit. Lists place higher-relevance entries first; chronological steps and test protocols retain their required sequence. Topic labels use the same colors throughout the library, with text identifying every subject.