IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

1

Automatic Classification of Functional Gait
Disorders

arXiv:1712.06405v2 [] 24 Dec 2017

Djordje Slijepcevic, Matthias Zeppelzauer, Anna-Maria Gorgas, Caterine Schwab, Michael Schüller, Arnold Baca,
Christian Breiteneder, Brian Horsak

Abstract—This article proposes a comprehensive investigation
of the automatic classification of functional gait disorders based
solely on ground reaction force (GRF) measurements. The aim
of the study is twofold: (1) to investigate the suitability of stateof-the-art GRF parameterization techniques (representations) for
the discrimination of functional gait disorders; and (2) to provide
a first performance baseline for the automated classification of
functional gait disorders for a large-scale dataset. The utilized
database comprises GRF measurements from 279 patients with
gait disorders (GDs) and data from 161 healthy controls (N).
Patients were manually classified into four classes with different functional impairments associated with the “hip”, “knee”,
“ankle”, and “calcaneus”. Different parameterizations are investigated: GRF parameters, global principal component analysis
(PCA)-based representations and a combined representation
applying PCA on GRF parameters. The discriminative power
of each parameterization for different classes is investigated by
linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Based on this analysis, two
classification experiments are pursued: (1) distinction between
healthy and impaired gait (N vs. GD) and (2) multi-class
classification between healthy gait and all four GD classes.
Experiments show promising results and reveal among others
that several factors, such as imbalanced class cardinalities and
varying numbers of measurement sessions per patient have a
strong impact on the classification accuracy and therefore need to
be taken into account. The results represent a promising first step
towards the automated classification of gait disorders and a first
performance baseline for future developments in this direction.
Index Terms—Ground Reaction Force (GRF), Gait Classification, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Gait Parameters,
Machine Learning

I. I NTRODUCTION
AIT analysis is a tool for clinicians to objectively
quantify human locomotion and to describe and analyze
a patient‘s gait performance. The primary aim is to identify
impairments that affect a patient’s gait pattern [1].
Recordings obtained during clinical gait analyses produce
a vast amount of data which are difficult to comprehend
and analyze due to their high-dimensionality, temporal dependences, strong variability, non-linear relationships and correlations within the data [2]. This makes data interpretation
challenging and requires an experienced clinician to draw valid
conclusions. Several automatic analysis approaches based on

G

Manuscript received –; revised –.
Djordje Slijepcevic and Matthias Zeppelzauer are with St. Pölten University
of Applied Sciences, Austria and TU Wien, Austria.
Anna-Maria Gorgas, Caterine Schwab, and Brian Horsak are with St. Pölten
University of Applied Sciences, Austria.
Michael Schüller and Arnold Baca are with University of Vienna, Austria.
Christian Breitender is with TU Wien, Austria.

machine learning have been published in recent years to
tackle these problems and to support clinicians in identifying
and categorizing specific gait patterns into clinically relevant
categories [2], [3]. Machine learning methods employed in
this context comprise neural networks [4]–[6], support vector
machines (SVMs) [7]–[9], nearest neighbor classifiers [10],
[11], and different clustering approaches (hierarchical, kmeans, etc.) [12]. The performance of such methods strongly
depends on the input data representation [13]. Frequently used
representations in gait analysis comprise discrete kinematic
gait parameters (e.g. local minima and maxima of gait signals
and time-distance parameters) [11], [14], [15]. Additionally,
previous research has shown that global signal representations
obtained by principal component analysis (PCA) [16], [17],
kernel-based PCA (KPCA) [18], [19] and discrete wavelet
transformation (DWT) [10], [11] are suitable for subsequent
classification [10], [16].
Typical use cases for automatic gait analysis described in the
literature show a moderate to high accuracy in distinguishing
between different pathologies or patient groups [4], [7]–[9],
[11], [16], [17]. However, most of the existing literature investigated rather simple cases such as the differentiation between
the affected/non-affected limb in hemiplegic patients [20], and
the distinction of healthy gait from people with neurological
disorders [5], [11], transfemoral amputation [16], and lower
limb fractures [4], [17]. A more complex study is presented
in [21], where several disorders associated with traumatic
brain injuries are classified. The majority of published articles
employed kinematic and kinetic data derived from threedimensional gait analysis (3DGA), which provide a vast
amount of kinematic and kinetic information for multiple
joints. Drawbacks of such 3DGA measurement systems are the
relatively time-consuming data recording, the need for highly
trained staff as well as high acquisition and maintenance costs.
Therefore, such analysis tools are often not suitable for daily
use in clinical practice.
To manage the high patient throughput in rehabilitation
centers, a frequently used approach is to combine simple visual
inspection or 2D video recordings with the quantification of
ground reaction forces (GRF) by force platforms, as changes
in the morphology of the GRF waveforms reflect pathological
gait [11], [17]. One major drawback of this approach is the
loss of clinically relevant and quantifiable information (e.g.
gait kinematics), causing a potential decrease in classification
accuracy [22]. However, such simple approaches are common
in clinical practice as they overcome the before-mentioned limitations of 3DGA. To date, few attempts have been published

©2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including
reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or
reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works. DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2017.2785682

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

that use only GRF data for automated gait pattern classification
[16], [23]. Most of these gait classification approaches show
promising results. However, the majority of previous works
employed relatively small datasets. Alaqtash et al. [11], for
example, compared the data of 12 healthy adults to those of
patients with cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis (4 patients
each), Muniz and Nadal [17] used data from 38 healthy
controls and 13 patients with lower limb fracture, and Soares
et al. [16] classified GRF data of 20 able-bodied and 12
patients with transfemoral amputation. Such small datasets
make it difficult to train robust and reliable classifiers that
are applicable in complex real-world scenarios. Furthermore,
a majority of studies [10], [17], [23] relies solely on the vertical ground reaction force for classification purposes, rather
than considering all available GRF components, including the
center of pressure (COP), for a more conclusive picture of the
underlying gait pattern. Previous classification attempts mainly
focused on the differentiation between specific diseases rather
than drawing a distinction between functional gait disorders.
The work of Köhle and Merkl [24], [25], who clustered
and classified GRF measurements into deficits of different
body regions, represents an exception in this regard. Their
dataset was about half of the size of the one presented in
this article and their work also focused on patients walking
with a prosthesis. In this article we define a functional gait
disorder as the cause of a gait impairment, which is reflected
by the individual gait patterns. These may be associated
with a patient’s condition after joint replacement surgery,
fractures, ligament ruptures, osteoarthritis or related disorders.
The classification of functional gait disorders is of particular
interest in clinical examinations, as it may play a key role
in detecting arthropathies or diseases at an early stage. In
addition, such a classification may also indicate secondary
disorders that otherwise might be easily overlooked during
clinical examination.
The aim of this article is to present a detailed investigation of the automated classification of several functional gait
disorders solely based on GRF data. The presented approach
builds upon the aforementioned studies, e.g. [16], [17], [23],
investigates the suitability of frequently used state-of-theart GRF parameterization techniques for gait classification
and analyzes their discriminative power. In the experiments
we evaluate the individual representations on a large-scale
and real-world dataset for different classification tasks. This
paper therefore presents a first performance baseline for the
automatic classification of different gait disorders in a realworld setting.
II. M ATERIAL AND M ETHODS
A. Patients and dataset
The presented retrospective study was approved by the
local Ethics Committee of Lower Austria (GS1-EK-4/2992014). The anonymized data used in this study are part of an
existing clinical gait database maintained by a rehabilitation
center of the Austrian Workers’ Compensation Board (AUVA).
The AUVA is the social insurance for occupational risks for
more than 3.3 million employees and 1.4 million pupils and

2

students in Austria. The utilized database comprises GRF
measurements from 279 patients with gait disorders (GD) and
data from 161 healthy controls (N), both of various physical
composition and gender (see Table I for details on the dataset).
Patients were manually classified into four classes - calcaneus
“C” (n = 82), ankle “A” (n = 62), knee “K” (n = 69), and
hip “H” (n = 66) - by a physical therapist, based on the
available medical diagnosis of each patient. Thus, GD refers to
C ∪ A ∪ K ∪ H. The individual GD classes include patients
after joint replacement surgery, fractures, ligament ruptures,
and related disorders associated with the above-mentioned
anatomical areas. The most common injuries present in the hip
class are fractures of the pelvis and thigh as well as luxation of
the hip joint, coxarthrosis, and total hip replacement. The knee
class comprises patients after patella, femur or tibia fractures,
ruptures of the cruciate or collateral ligaments or the meniscus
and total knee replacements. The ankle class includes patients
after fractures of the calcaneus, malleoli, talus, tibia or lower
leg, and ruptures of ligaments or the achilles tendon. The
calcaneus class comprises patients after calcaneus fractures or
ankle fusion surgery. All of the above-mentioned injuries may
occur individually or in combination within each class.
Each patient performed one or several measurement sessions. In each session, eight recordings for two consecutive
steps were performed. Each bilateral recording is referred to
as one trial in this paper. Thus, the utilized dataset contains
1,187 sessions comprising 9,496 individual trials (see Table I
for details).
B. Data recording and preprocessing
Gait analysis was performed on a 10m walkway with two
centrally embedded force plates (Kistler, Type 9281B12). The
force plates were placed in a consecutive order, allowing a
person to walk across by placing one foot on each plate. Both
plates were flush with the ground and covered with the same
walkway surface material, so that targeting was not an issue.
During a session, participants walked unassisted and without a
walking aid at a self-selected walking speed until a minimum
of eight valid recordings were available. These recordings were
defined as valid by a supervisor when the participant walked
naturally and there was a clean foot strike on the force plate.
Prior to the gait analysis session, each participant underwent
rigorous physical examination by a physician.
All processing steps and subsequent analyses were performed in Matlab 2016a (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA,
USA). The three analog GRF signals as well as the two COP
signals were converted to digital signals using a sampling rate
of 2000Hz and a 12-bit analog-digital converter (DT3010, Data
Translation Incorporation, Marlboro, MA, USA) with a signal
input range of ±10V. A threshold of 10N was used for step
detection and 30N for COP calculation. Raw signals were
filtered using a 2nd order low-pass butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 20Hz. All gait measurements were temporally
aligned so that they all started with the initial contact and
ended with toe-off. They were further time-normalized to
100% stance by re-sampling the data to 1000 points. The
processed signals are referred to as waveforms in this article.

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

3

TABLE I: Details of the dataset and classes
Class
Healthy Control (N)
Calcaneus (C)
Ankle (A)
Knee (K)
Hip (H)
SUM

Amount
161
82
62
69
66
440

Age (yrs.)
Mean ± SD
32.4 ± 13.6
42.4 ± 9.9
40.0 ± 11.5
41.5 ± 11.4
43.6 ± 14.7
38.4 ± 13.3

Body Mass (kg)
Mean ± SD
74.1 ± 16.2
84.5 ± 12.1
88.3 ± 16.9
83.7 ± 19.6
81.6 ± 18.3
80.7 ± 17.3

Sex
(m/f)
84/77
74/8
56/6
44/25
53/13
311/129

Num. Sessions

Num. Trials

161
320
259
258
189
1,187

1,288
2,560
2,072
2,064
1,512
9,496

Amplitude values of the three force components, i.e. vertical
(V), medio-lateral (ML), and anterior-posterior (AP), were
expressed as a multiple of body weight (BW ) by dividing
the force by the product of body mass times acceleration
due to gravity (g). The COP waveforms from each trial were
normalized by the foot length (F L) determined during each
session, expressed as a multiple of foot length.
C. Signal representation
The representations employed in our investigation comprise
(1) discrete GRF parameters (DP) in combination with timedistance parameters (TDP) [11], [14], [15]; (2) PCA-based
parameterizations of the entire GRF waveforms [4], [8], [16]
and (3) a combination of the first two approaches, i.e. PCA
applied to DPs and TDPs [7]. In the following, all three
approaches are described in detail.
DPs were calculated for the affected limb and extracted from
all three force components, FV (t) (vertical), FAP (t) (anteriorposterior), and FM L (t) (medio-lateral), as well as from the
COP displacement in the anterior-posterior (walking) direction
COPAP (t) and in the medio-lateral direction COPM L (t). An
example of the GRF and corresponding COP waveforms is
presented in Figure 1. Furthermore, a more detailed visualization of the mean GRF waveforms over each class is illustrated
in Figure S1 (supplementary material). DPs include a set of
predefined (most prominent) local minima and maxima of the
waveforms, which were extracted by peak detection in a fully
automatic way from each trial. Furthermore, impulses were
calculated over different segments of the waveform by multiplying the average force (in N ) by the time this force is active.
To account for differences in body mass between participants
[26], all impulses were divided by the product of body mass
times acceleration due to gravity (g) and then multiplied by
100 (%BW ·s). TDPs such as cadence (CAD), double support
time (DS), gait velocity (GV ), step length (ST EP LEN ), and
stance time (ST ) were calculated from two consecutive steps
(affected and unaffected limb) and averaged over the eight
valid trials. Table II lists all 52 extracted parameters.
In contrast to the GRF parameters (DPs and TDPs), the PCA
takes the entire waveforms1 of the affected limb into account
and provides a holistic representation of the data. Complementary information to the parameters is thus captured. The
main goal of PCA is to reduce the dimensionality of a dataset
by transforming the data into a set of uncorrelated variables,
i.e. the principal components (PCs) [27]. Each PC points in
1 For the purpose of the present study, every third sample was used in order
to reduce redundancy in the data, thereby improving the robustness of the
decomposition.

Fig. 1: (top) The characteristic shape of the three components
of the GRF: the vertical force (FV ), the anterior-posterior
shear (FAP ), and the medio-lateral shear (FM L ). (bottom) The
corresponding COP path for one step. Note that x and y axes
are scaled slightly differently for better visualization.

(and thus explains) one orthogonal direction of variance in
the data. The main intention is to obtain a lower-dimensional
representation of our time- and weight-normalized waveforms
similar to [4], [8], [16] by projecting the data onto those
PCs which explain most variance in the data. This dimensionality reduction fosters subsequent machine learning [3].
We performed PCA on each of the five signals separately and
concatenated the resulting PCs to obtain a feature vector for
classification. This approach proved to be superior to other
PCA-based representations in a preliminary study [28]. The
final dimensionality of the obtained representations is specified
by the amount of variance preserved in a particular projection,
i.e. 98%, 95%, and 90%. An exemplary visualization of
the different PCA representations is presented in Figure S2
(supplementary material). A preliminary evaluation indicated
that preserving 98% of the variance results in a good trade-off
between data reduction and classification performance. Thus,
all results presented in the following are based on the approach
in which 98% of the variance is preserved (the number of
resulting PCs is waveform-specific and ranges from four to
twelve. For all five signals there are 39 PCs in total).
As a third representation, PCA was applied to the previ-

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

4

TABLE II: Discrete and time-distance parameters, description, type of normalization and physical unit.
Abbreviation
Description
ST
Stance time is the duration of the stance phase of one foot
FV 1
Maximum value of FV within the breaking phase of stance
TV 1
Time of FV 1
FV 2
Minimum value of FV between TV 1 and TV 3
TV 2
Time of FV 2
FV 3
Maximum value of FV ) within the propulsive phase of stance
TV 3
Time of FV 3
FAP 1
Maximum value of FAP between initial contact and TAP 2
TAP 1
Time of FAP 1
FAP 2
Minimum value of FAP ) within the breaking phase of stance
TAP 2
Time of FAP 2
FAP 3
Maximum value of FAP ) within the propulsive phase of stance
TAP 3
Time of FAP 3
FM L1
Minimum value of FM L within the breaking phase of stance
TM L1
Time of FM L1
FM L2
Maximum value of FM L within the breaking phase of stance
TM L2
Time of FM L2
FM L3
Maximum value of FM L within the propulsive phase of stance
TM L3
Time of FM L3
FV AV G
Mean value of FV
FAP AV G
Mean value of FAP
FM LAV G
Mean value of FM L
IFV
Impulse of FV during stance
IFAP
Impulse of FAP during stance
IFM L
Impulse of FM L during stance
IFV 1
Impulse of FV between initial contact and TV 1
IFV 2
Impulse of FV between initial contact and TV 2
IFV 3
Impulse of FV between initial contact and TV 3
IFAP DEC
Impulse of FAP during the breaking phase
IFAP ACC
Impulse of FAP during the propulsive phase
IFLAT
Impulse of the lateral component of FM L
IFM ED
Impulse of the medial component of FM L
COP AN G
COP angle is the horizontal angle between the COP linear regression line and the x-axes (6= foot rotation)
COP DEV
COP deviation is the root mean square error of the COP linear regression
COPAP
COP range is the range in the anterior-posterior direction during stance phase
COP V
COP velocity is calculated as the ratio of foot length and stance time
COPM L
COP range is the range in the medio-lateral direction during stance phase
DECT
Deceleration time (breaking phase) is the duration of FAP being negative
ACCT
Acceleration time (propulsive phase) is the duration of FAP being positive
LR0080
Loading rate represented as the slope of FV from the initial contact to 80% of FV 1
LR2080
Loading rate represented as the slope of FV from 20% to 80% of FV 1
U R8000
Unloading rate represented as the slope of FV from 80% of FV 3 to the toe-off
U R8020
Unloading rate represented as the slope of FV from 80% to 20% of FV 3
DS
Double support time during one stride
ST EP LEN
Step length is the distance of the COP position from initial contact to following contralateral initial contact
ST EP V
Step velocity is calculated as the ratio of step length and step time
ST RIDET
Stride time is the duration from initial contact to initial contact of the ipsilateral foot
BF
Basic frequency is the mean number of strides per second (1/ST RIDET )
CAD
Cadence is the number of steps per minute
ST EP W D
Step width is the medio-lateral distance of the mean COP between both feet
ST RLEN
Stride length is the distance of the COP position from initial contact to following ipsilateral initial contact
GV
Gait velocity is calculated as the mean step velocity of both feet
Body weight (BW): product of body mass and acceleration due to gravity;
%ST: percentage of stance time; %BW: percentage of body weight; FL: multiple of foot length.

ously extracted DPs and TDPs (a vector comprising of 52
parameters), similarly to Wu et al. [7]. This approach combines
both methodologies and aims at extracting the most important
information from the (possibly redundant) parameters.
D. Statistical analysis
Our first aim was to investigate the suitability of different
parameterization techniques for subsequent gait classification.
For this purpose we analyzed the variance and discriminative
power of each DP and TDP across the different classes by
descriptive statistics in a first step. We calculated the median,
interquartile-range (IQR) and range of each parameter within
each class and visualized them as boxplots. This enabled us to
visually inspect variances and distributions in and across the
classes, thereby allowing a first estimation of the discriminative power of each parameter.
In a second step, we investigated the discriminative power
of the parameters and the global PCA-based representations
by linear discriminant analysis (LDA). A natural measure
to describe the separation of two distributions (classes) is
the Fisher criterion, which represents the core of LDA [29].
We applied (multi-class) LDA to assess the discriminative

Normalization
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Stance time
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Foot length
Foot length
Foot length
Foot length
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
Body weight
-

Unit
s
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
%ST
BW
BW
BW
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
%BW ·s
deg
FL
FL
F L/s
FL
s
s
N/s
N/s
N/s
N/s
s
m
km/h
s
Hz
1/min
m
m
km/h

power of individual parameters for two (or more) classes. The
advantage of this approach is that the discriminative power of
a parameter (even across multiple classes) can be expressed
by one scalar value that directly reflects the statistical properties of the input data. Hence, there is no need to apply
additional modelling and data transformations (which may
influence results) prior to LDA, which would be necessary for
other methods such as SVM. Furthermore, this approach can
easily be extended to estimate the discriminative power of a
combination of several parameters by multi-dimensional LDA
(e.g. in case of PCA-based representations). We computed the
accuracy of LDA and reported the divergence from a random
baseline [30] to quantify to which degree an input parameter or
input representation is able to separate the underlying classes.
The random baseline was estimated by the zero rule (always
choosing the most frequent class in the dataset). Thus, in the
case of five classes where the largest class contains 30% of
the data the random baseline equals 30%.
E. Classification
We applied two classification tasks to the dataset by using SVMs as classifiers: (1) (binary) classification between

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

normal gait and all gait disorders (N/GD) and (2) (multiclass) classification between N and each of the four GD
classes (N/C/A/K/H). In the first task, the class priors
are imbalanced, i.e. there are many more observations in the
combined GD class than in the normal class (see Table I). The
second task separates each type of disorder from each other
and from the normal class.
For the classification experiments the dataset was split into
a training (65%) and a test set (35%), thereby mutually
disjoining the groups of patients in both sets. The training
dataset in combination with a k-fold cross-validation approach
served to train the classifiers and to optimize their parameters
(model selection), whereas the test dataset was used to evaluate
the generalization ability of the trained models (and was
not considered during model selection and hyper-parameter
optimization). The calculated DPs and TDPs as well as the
PCA-based representations served as input to classification.
The parameters (DPs and TDPs) were normalized (each independently) in a twofold way, by min-max normalization
and z-standardization, in order to determine the more suitable
approach. The PCA representations were z-standardized. We
employed SVMs for the classification with linear and radial
basis function (RBF) kernels, provided by the LIBSVM library
[31]. For hyper-parameter selection we applied a grid search
over the regularization parameter C ∈ [2−5 , 215 ] for the linear
SVM and over C ∈ [2−1 , 215 ] and the kernel hyper-parameter
γ ∈ [2−15 , 25 ] for the RBF SVM. During the grid search, a
5-fold cross-validation was performed on the training dataset.
Finally, an SVM with the best parameters estimated during
model selection was trained on the entire training set and evaluated on the test set. Additionally a k-nearest neighbor (k-NN)
classifier and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) were employed
as a reference to compare their results to the performance of
the SVM. Grid search was performed over various values of
k for the k-NN. For the MLPs different numbers and sizes
of hidden layers were employed. As a performance measure
we use the classification accuracy, which is the percentage of
correct classifications among all classes and input samples.
Since in different experiments the random baseline varies,
the absolute values of accuracy are of limited expressiveness.
To enable a fair comparison, we employ the divergence from
a random baseline approach [30] and thus provide for each
experiment the difference between the random baseline and
the absolute classification accuracy.
III. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

T

HIS section presents and discusses the results of the
statistical analysis and the classification experiments.

A. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis aimed at assessing the suitability
of the individual GRF parameters (DPs and TDPs) for distinguishing different classes of gait disorders. In order to be
considered a ”good” parameter, intra-class variation should be
low (e.g. small IQR inside a given class), while the inter-class
variation should be high (e.g. significantly different means or
medians between the samples of different classes) [15].

5

The visual inspection of the boxplots for each parameter
enables a first assessment of the intra- and inter-class variation
and thereby gives an impression of the parameters’ potential
to differentiate between different classes. Figure 2 shows
boxplots for selected parameters. A presentation of boxplots
for all 52 investigated parameters for all classes is provided
in Figure S3 (supplementary material). Parameters such as
FV 3 (see Figure 2(a)) show a clear difference in the median
and the IQR between the healthy controls and all four GD
classes. This indicates a high potential to discriminate between
normal gait and arbitrary gait disorders. However, the overlap
of the distributions within the GD classes indicates a low
potential to discriminate between them. Other parameters such
as TAP 3 (see Figure 2(b)) vary strongly in the IQR and the
median across the classes. While the IQR is high for calcaneus
and ankle, the classes hip, knee, and the normal controls
exhibit a very similar distribution. Thus, such a parameter has
solely limited potential to separate normal gait from general
gait disorders. There may be, however, a certain potential
to separate individual classes (in this case calcaneus) from
other classes. Other parameters may lack in discriminative
power. An example is IFAP (see Figure 2(c)), which shows
a similar median and overlapping distributions with a similar
IQR across all classes. Several parameters are discriminative
for particular classes or a group of classes. However, none
of the observed parameters discriminates well between all
classes. Therefore, the combination of several parameters
for the distinction between classes seems advisable. These
assumptions are further corroborated by the LDA results.

Fig. 2: Example of boxplots for three parameters. Each boxplot
shows the median and the IQR (box) for each class (outliers
were removed for better visualization). Box-whiskers correspond to 1.5 of the box-length, thus show approximately ± 2.7
standard deviations. The overlap of distributions between the
classes gives an impression of the parameters’ discriminative
power.
LDA was applied to the individual parameters and their
combination, as well as to the higher-dimensional PCAbased representations. This analysis aimed at quantifying the
discriminative power of the investigated representations and
thereby evaluating their suitability for automated classification.
Figure 3 illustrates discriminativity scores obtained by LDA
in terms of deviation from the random baseline (zero rule).
In detail, results for different combinations of classes (rows)
are illustrated: rows 1-4 provide results for the discrimination
of normal gait vs. ankle, calcaneus, hip or knee (each class
separately). Row 5 shows how well all 5 classes can be
differentiated from each other. Row 6 illustrates how well
normal gait can be differentiated from all types of gait
disorders. Rows 7-12 show how all possible pairs of gait

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

disorder classes can be differentiated from each other. Positive
discriminativity scores are represented by a color scale from
blue (corresponding to low values) to yellow (representing
high values), whereas negative values are colored in gray.
Positive values mean that the random baseline is exceeded
and that the respective input parameter or input representation
exhibits a certain discriminative power (the higher the value
the better). Negative values indicate the absence of discriminative power, i.e. the random baseline is not reached. It has to
be noted that, since the different class partitions represented
by the rows of Figure 3 have different random baselines, the
values across rows cannot be compared directly. Comparisons
are solely valid along the rows. In general, however, columns
including a larger number of high values indicate parameters or
representations with a higher discriminative power. Similarly,
rows with higher values represent tasks that are easier to solve
than others.
The leftmost part of Figure 3 illustrates the discriminativity scores for the individual parameters. Several parameters achieve high scores for individual classes or combinations of classes, e.g. FAP 3 , FV 3 , FV AV G , FV 1 , TV 3 ,
TAP 3 , GV , ST EP V , DS, ST RLEN , FV 2 , ST EP W D,
CAD, BF , and ST RIDET . No parameter, however, performs well across all tasks. This indicates that individual
parameters are quite limited in expressiveness. The second
part (ALL P ARAM S) of Figure 3 illustrates the results
from the combination of all parameters. The combination
yields much better discrimination across all rows of Figure 3.
This demonstrates that the individual parameters contain complementary information and attain synergies when they are
combined. The third part of Figure 3 visualizes the results
of the PCA-based representations of the five input signals
FV , FAP , FM L , COPAP , and COPM L . The three GRF
components achieved higher scores compared to the COP
signals. The rightmost part of Figure 3 shows the discriminativity scores for combined PCA representations, i.e all
three GRF components combined (P CA FALL ), both COP
signals combined (P CA COPAP,M L ), and all five components combined (P CA ALL). In general, the combination
of components improved the results, which indicates that the
individual GRF components are complementary to each other.
The addition of the COP further improved the discriminative
power. Thus, adding COP to a classification may contribute
positively to the results. The representations (P CA ALL and
ALL P ARAM S) are combined able to contribute to all
evaluated tasks (rows) of Figure 3.
The evaluated representations are more suitable for differentiating between the healthy control group and a functional
gait disorder (rows 1-4) than between two functional gait
disorders (rows 7-12). Regarding the task N/GD, solely a few
parameters are able to exceed the random baseline. This is due
to the fact that the combined set of all gait disorders contains
much more samples than the class of healthy controls (i.e.
279 vs. 161 samples). This yields a random baseline around
87.1% which is more difficult to exceed than random baselines
in other tasks.

6

B. Classification
The results of the classification experiments, which were
performed on data from the test set, are summarized in Table
III. The test set was not presented to the classifier during the
training phase and the selection of its parameters. Results are
provided for the two classification tasks (N/C/A/K/H and
N/GD) and for three different parameterizations. The results
of the additional experiments with other classifiers such as
the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and the k-nearest neighbors
algorithm (k-NN) were all outperformed by the SVM results,
which confirms also the results of Janssen, Schöllhorn et al.
[32]. Therefore, and due to the limited space available, these
results will not be discussed in detail.
The first evaluated parameterization comprises of 52 GRF
parameters (DPs and TDPs) that are extracted from all five
GRF input signals. Due to the strong variation in the parameters’ value ranges, a suitable normalization of the data
is essential. We evaluated min-max normalization as well as
z-standardization. The use of z-standardization resulted in a
slightly higher deviation from the RB for both tasks (except for
the RBF SVM in task N/C/A/K/H) compared to min-max
normalization. Furthermore, the RBF SVM failed to exceed
the random baseline for both methods in the task N/GD.
The second parameterization was obtained by PCA of the
raw GRF waveforms. PCAs obtained solely from the three
force components clearly outperform the GRF parameters
(DPs and TDPs). By adding the COP measurements the results
were further improved for both tasks. Normalization of the
PCA-based representations is crucial as performance otherwise
drops significantly.
The third parameterization applied PCA on the zstandardized and min-max normalized DPs and TDPs. The
dimensionality reduction resulted in a 28-dimensional vector
which was also z-standardized prior to classification. In this
case, results for both normalizations (last two rows of Table
III) were improved for the task N/GD compared to the
representation with the original GRF parameters (first two
rows of Table III). However, this is not the case for task
N/C/A/K/H, where the deviation from the RB slightly
decreased.
In summary, the best performance (marked in bold in
Table III) was achieved by applying PCA to all five GRF
signals. The linear SVM achieved the highest deviation from
the RB (22.5%) for task N/C/A/K/H as well as for task
N/GD (3.7%). Alternative classifiers which were also evaluated yielded a lower deviation from the RB: MLP 21.0%
and k-NN 13.4% for task N/C/A/K/H and MLP 2.6%
and k-NN 2.2% for task N/GD. In terms of accuracy and
deviation from the RB, the linear SVM performed better in
all experiments. The RBF SVM has an advantage solely in
terms of runtime.
The main reason for the great difference in the performance between the two tasks is the strong class imbalance
in task N/GD, which makes this task particularly difficult
to solve. One way of dealing with unbalanced datasets in
SVMs is the use of different weights for different classes,
thereby emphasizing the importance of the under-represented

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

7

Fig. 3: Discriminativity scores obtained by LDA for different selections of classes (rows). The figure is divided into four
blocks. Each column represents a different input parameter or higher-dimensional input representation. Best viewed in color.

classes. Therefore, additional class-weighted experiments were
performed. Results with different cost functions showed that
no further performance increase can be achieved. The uniform
cost function seems to work best on the data.
C. Discussion and further aspects
We presented a study on the classification of different
functional gait disorders, stemming from a wide range of
possible impairments, into categories that represent the main
affected body region. The motivation for selecting these broad
categories is that identifying the region of impairment is
essential for clinical practice and may allow to pinpoint impairments already at an early stage. In addition, it could indicate
secondary impairments which may easily be overlooked by
the physician during clinical examination. The present study
represents a first performance baseline for the classification
of gait disorders. Results are particularly promising for task
N/GD. However, an absolute classification accuracy of 91%
still lies below an acceptable threshold for clinical practice.
For the classification of individual disorder categories, the
results indicate that further improvements are necessary. To
date, the proposed approach could, however, already serve as
a support for clinicians indicating the presence of (additional)
arthropathies or diseases. In order to reduce the classification
complexity, while still providing support for clinicians, similar
classes could be merged, i.e. the hip and knee classes into a
thigh class and the ankle and calcaneus classes into a shank
class. The results of this additional experiment showed a deviation from the RB of 26.8% (using a linear SVM, RB: 51%,
absolute accuracy: 77.8%). Compared to the distinction of
all five classes (N/C/A/K/H), this is a clear increase in
accuracy and deviation from the RB.
Different influencing factors, i.e. the imbalance of the class
priors, the variability in the number of sessions per person
and gender-specific aspects may introduce a bias into the
aforementioned analyses. To investigate the effect of these
factors on classification performance, we performed additional
experiments. To this end, we used the best configuration found

so far as a baseline, i.e. PCA on all five signals with a
linear SVM (4th parametrization in Table III) and applied it
to different balanced subsets of our dataset. The results are
presented in Table IV and are discussed in the following.
For the experiments in Section III-B we decided to use
all available sessions of patients recorded in the course of
their rehabilitation to account for different progression stages
of impairments. This, however, may introduce a bias in the
experiments as more trials exist for some patients than for
others. To evaluate to which extent the varying number of
recorded sessions per patient influences the overall result, we
balanced the dataset by selecting only one random session per
person. Interestingly, the deviation from the RB improved for
task N/C/A/K/H to 23.7% (+1.2%) and for task N/GD to
20.6% (+16.9%), as presented in the first row of Table IV.
These results show that intra-patient variability needs to be
taken into account and requires additional modeling in a
classification approach.
Another factor causing an imbalance in the data are the
different class cardinalities, i.e. different numbers of persons
per class. In order to investigate the influence of this imbalance
we performed an experiment for both tasks with a dataset
containing the same number of participants per class (but
keeping all sessions in the dataset). For task N/C/A/K/H
the balanced dataset is composed of data from 62 persons from
each class (overall 310 persons, 7616 trials). For task N/GD
the balanced dataset contained data from 160 healthy controls
and 160 persons with a deficit (40 from each GD class, overall
320 persons and 6096 trials). The deviation from the RB
improved for task N/C/A/K/H to 28.3% (+5.8%) and for
task N/GD to 5.3% (+1.6%), as shown in the second row
of Table IV. Although the results show that balancing the
number of patients among classes is beneficial, the results of
task N/GD reveal the still existing imbalance in the dataset
(due to the fact that healthy controls have only one session
and patients up to several sessions).
The next question deals with the effect of balancing the
number of patients and the number of sessions at the same
time. We performed experiments with a completely balanced

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

8

TABLE III: Classification results (%) of two tasks - N/C/A/K/H and N/GD - and three different parameterization
approaches. Note that the random baseline (RB) is stated next to the task name and that the values in the table represent
the deviation from the random baseline (RB) and the corresponding absolute accuracy in brackets.
Parameterization

Norm.

GRF
GRF
PCA
PCA
PCA
PCA

z-score
min-max
z-score
z-score
z-score
z-score

Parameters (DPs and TDPs)
Parameters (DPs and TDPs)
on FV , FAP , FM L
on FV , FAP , FM L , COPAP , COPM L
on z-standardized GRF parameters
on min-max normalized GRF parameters

Dim.

TABLE IV: Results (%) of analyses assessing the influence of
several factors on the results of the two tasks - N/C/A/K/H
and N/GD. The experiments are performed with a PCA on
all five signals in combination with a linear SVM. Note that
the values represent the deviation from the random baseline
(RB) and the corresponding absolute accuracy in brackets.
Partitions of the dataset
Session are balanced
Persons are balanced
Persons & sessions are balanced
Male population

N/C/A/K/H
23.7 (60.2)
28.3 (59.5)
39.2 (59.2)
20.9 (51.3)

N/GD
20.6 (84.1)
5.3 (84.7)
35.4 (85.4)
0.6 (91.4)

version of our dataset for each task, containing only one
session per person and equal numbers of persons per class.
For task N/C/A/K/H the balanced dataset is composed of
data from 62 persons from each class (overall 310 persons,
2480 trials). For task N/GD the balanced dataset contained
data from 160 healthy controls and 160 persons with a deficit
(40 from each GD class, overall 320 persons and 2560 trials).
The results of our experiments showed clear performance improvements of +16.7% in the deviation from the RB compared
to the baseline for task N/C/A/K/H and +31% compared to
the baseline for task N/GD (see the third row in Table IV).
Other biases in the data may be introduced by variations
in gender, walking velocity, leg length and other parameters
[33] leading to a variability of GRF parameterizations in the
individual disorder classes. Additional normalization of the
input data may be necessary to reduce intra-class variation to
improve classification accuracy. Several studies have shown
that in particular gender causes strong variability in gait
signals [34], [35]. To assess the influence of gender on our
results, an experiment was performed on a reduced dataset
containing only data from male participants (note that the
number of female participants in our dataset is not sufficient
to perform separate experiments). Surprisingly, the results did
not improve (see the last row in Table IV). This indicates that
for our data, gender has rather little influence on the results,
which, however, does not imply that the influence of gender
can be neglected a priori. A detailed study on the influence of
gender is subject to future investigation.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS

T

HE present study aimed at classifying patients with different orthopedic gait impairments at the hip, knee, ankle,
and calcaneus from healthy controls using GRF measurements.
For this purpose a dataset of 9,496 gait measurements from

52
52
30
39
28
28

N/C/A/K/H
linear SVM
15.0 (46.8)
14.3 (46.1)
19.8 (51.6)
22.5 (54.3)
13.8 (45.6)
13.5 (45.3)

(RB: 31.8%)
RBF SVM
8.8 (40.6)
9.5 (41.3)
15.4 (47.2)
19.4 (51.2)
8.8 (40.6)
7.9 (39.7)

N/GD (RB: 87.1%)
linear SVM
RBF SVM
2.4 (89.5)
-0.8 (86.3)
1.6 (88.7)
-3.8 (83.3)
2.4 (89.5)
2.0 (89.1)
3.7 (90.8)
1.9 (89.0)
2.6 (89.7)
-0.6 (86.5)
2.8 (89.9)
0.1 (87.2)

clinical practice was utilized. In a first step we investigated
the suitability of state-of-the-art GRF parameterizations and
analyzed their statistical properties and discriminative power
among the classes. Based on these results, the use of entire
GRF waveform parameterizations as input (such as PCA),
rather than relying on GRF parameters (DPs and TDPs) seems
advisable. Furthermore, the use of GRF force components
paired with the respective COP measurements yielded the
best results. Our experiments further showed that balancing
the dataset significantly improves results (e.g. increasing the
deviation from the random baseline by +16.7% for the classification into healthy controls and all four GD classes and
by +31% for distinguishing between healthy controls and
patients).
The presented study shows that results heavily depend on
the employed GRF representation. Future work will investigate
and evaluate adaptively learned signal representations [36],
[37] to obtain more discriminative and expressive parameterizations of GRF measurements. Furthermore, we will focus
on establishing a large, open-source, and balanced data set to
foster further developments in this area. Our results thereby
provide a first performance baseline for the classification of
functional gait disorders and can serve as a reference for future
improvements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project is funded by the NFB Lower Austrian Research
and Education Company and the Provincial Government of
Lower Austria, Department of Science and Research (LSC14005). We want to thank Marianne Worisch and Szava Zoltán
for their great assistance in data preparation and their great
support in clinical and technical questions.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Baker. Measuring walking: a handbook of clinical gait analysis. Mac
Keith Press, London, 2013.
[2] T. Chau. A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 1: fuzzy,
statistical and fractal methods. Gait & Posture, 13(1):49–66, 2001.
[3] T. Chau. A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 2: neural
network and wavelet methods. Gait & Posture, 13(2):102–120, 2001.
[4] C.A. Lozano-Ortiz, A.M.S. Muniz, and J. Nadal. Human gait classification after lower limb fracture using artificial neural networks and
principal component analysis. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pages 1413–
1416. IEEE, 2010.
[5] W. Zeng, F. Liu, Q. Wang, Y. Wang, L. Ma, and Y. Zhang. Parkinson’s
disease classification using gait analysis via deterministic learning.
Neuroscience Letters, 633:268–278, 2016.

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

[6] A. Vieira, H. Sobral, J.P. Ferreira, P. Ferreira, S. Cruz, M. Crisostomo,
and A.P. Coimbra. Software for human gait analysis and classification.
In Bioengineering (ENBENG), 2015 IEEE 4th Portuguese Meeting on,
page 1. IEEE, 2015.
[7] J. Wu, J. Wang, and L. Liu. Feature extraction via kpca for classification
of gait patterns. Human movement science, 26(3):393–411, 2007.
[8] J. Wu and J. Wang. Pca-based svm for automatic recognition of gait
patterns. Journal of applied biomechanics, 24(1):83–87, 2008.
[9] P. Levinger, D.T.H. Lai, R.K. Begg, K.E. Webster, and J.A. Feller.
The application of support vector machines for detecting recovery from
knee replacement surgery using spatio-temporal gait parameters. Gait
& posture, 29(1):91–96, 2009.
[10] N. Mezghani, S. Husse, K. Boivin, K. Turcot, R. Aissaoui, N. Hagemeister, and J.A. de Guise. Automatic classification of asymptomatic
and osteoarthritis knee gait patterns using kinematic data features
and the nearest neighbor classifier. IEEE transactions on biomedical
engineering, 55(3):1230–1232, 2008.
[11] M. Alaqtash, T. Sarkodie-Gyan, H. Yu, O. Fuentes, R. Brower, and
A. Abdelgawad. Automatic classification of pathological gait patterns
using ground reaction forces and machine learning algorithms. In
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2011 Annual International
Conference of the IEEE, pages 453–457. IEEE, 2011.
[12] M. Ferrarin, G. Bovi, M. Rabuffetti, P. Mazzoleni, A. Montesano,
E. Pagliano, A. Marchi, A. Magro, C. Marchesi, D. Pareyson, and
I. Moroni. Gait pattern classification in children with charcot–marie–
tooth disease type 1a. Gait & posture, 35(1):131–137, 2012.
[13] Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent. Representation learning: A
review and new perspectives. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis
and machine intelligence, 35(8):1798–1828, 2013.
[14] G. Giakas and V. Baltzopoulos. Time and frequency domain analysis
of ground reaction forces during walking: an investigation of variability
and symmetry. Gait & Posture, 5(3):189–197, 1997.
[15] R. Lafuente, J.M. Belda, J. Snchez-Lacuesta, C. Soler, and J. Prat.
Design and test of neural networks and statistical classifiers in computeraided movement analysis: a case study on gait analysis. Clinical
Biomechanics, 13(3):216–229, 1998.
[16] D.P. Soares, M.P. de Castro, E.A. Mendes, and L. Machado. Principal
component analysis in ground reaction forces and center of pressure
gait waveforms of people with transfemoral amputation. Prosthetics
and orthotics international, 40(6):729–738, 2016.
[17] A.M.S. Muniz and J Nadal. Application of principal component analysis
in vertical ground reaction force to discriminate normal and abnormal
gait. Gait & posture, 29(1):31–35, 2009.
[18] Z. Peng, C. Cao, Q. Liu, and W. Pan. Human Walking Pattern
Recognition Based on KPCA and SVM with Ground Reflex Pressure
Signal. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013.
[19] Y. Xu, D. Zhang, Z. Jin, M. Li, and J.Y. Yang. A fast kernelbased nonlinear discriminant analysis for multi-class problems. Pattern
Recognition, 39(6):1026–1033, 2006.
[20] R. LeMoyne, W. Kerr, T. Mastroianni, and A. Hessel. Implementation
of machine learning for classifying hemiplegic gait disparity through
use of a force plate. In Machine Learning and Applications, 2014 13th
International Conference on, pages 379–382. IEEE, 2014.
[21] G. Williams, D. Lai, A. Schache, and M.E. Morris. Classification of
gait disorders following traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head
Trauma Rehabilitation, 30(2):E13–E23, 2015.
[22] W.I. Schöllhorn, B.M. Nigg, D.J. Stefanyshyn, and W. Liu. Identification
of individual walking patterns using time discrete and time continuous
data sets. Gait & Posture, 15(2):180–186, 2002.
[23] K.L. Goh, K.H. Lim, A.A. Gopalai, and Y.Z. Chong. Multilayer
perceptron neural network classification for human vertical ground
reaction forces. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Biomedical Engineering
and Sciences, pages 536–540, 2014.
[24] M. Köhle and D. Merkl. Analyzing human gait patterns for malfunction
detection. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Symposium on Applied
Computing, volume 1 of SAC ’00, pages 41–45. ACM, 2000.
[25] M. Köhle and D. Merkl. Identification of gait patterns with selforganizing maps based on ground reaction force. In ESANN, volume 96,
pages 24–26, 1996.
[26] K.C. Moisio, D.R. Sumner, S. Shott, and D.E. Hurwitz. Normalization
of joint moments during gait: a comparison of two techniques. Journal
of Biomechanics, 36(4):599–603, 2003.
[27] I. Jolliffe. Principal Component Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York,
2 edition, 2002.
[28] D. Slijepcevic, B. Horsak, C. Schwab, A.M. Raberger, M. Schüller,
A. Baca, C. Breiteneder, and M. Zeppelzauer. Ground reaction force

9

[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]

[33]
[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

measurements for gait classification tasks: Effects of different PCAbased representations. Gait & Posture, 57:4–5, 2017.
R.O. Duda, P.E. Hart, and D.G. Stork. Pattern classification. John Wiley
& Sons, 2012.
C.M. De Vries, S. Geva, and A. Trotman. Document clustering
evaluation: Divergence from a random baseline.
arXiv preprint
arXiv:1208.5654, 2012.
C.C. Chang and C.J. Lin. LIBSVM: A library for support vector
machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology,
2:27:1–27:27, 2011.
D. Janssen, W.I. Schöllhorn, K.M. Newell, J.M. Jäger, F. Rost, and
K. Vehof. Diagnosing fatigue in gait patterns by support vector machines
and self-organizing maps. Human movement science, 30(5):966–975,
2011.
M.R. Pierrynowski and V. Galea. Enhancing the ability of gait analyses
to differentiate between groups: scaling gait data to body size. Gait &
posture, 13(3):193–201, 2001.
B.M. Eskofier, M. Kraus, J.T. Worobets, D.J. Stefanyshyn, and B.M.
Nigg. Pattern classification of kinematic and kinetic running data to
distinguish gender, shod/barefoot and injury groups with feature ranking. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering,
15(5):467–474, 2012.
M.C. Chiu and M.J. Wang. The effect of gait speed and gender on
perceived exertion, muscle activity, joint motion of lower extremity,
ground reaction force and heart rate during normal walking. Gait &
posture, 25(3):385–392, 2007.
Y. Zhang, P.O. Ogunbona, W. Li, B. Munro, and G.G. Wallace. Pathological gait detection of parkinson’s disease using sparse representation.
In Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications, 2013 International Conference on, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2013.
J. Hannink, T. Kautz, C.F. Pasluosta, K.G. Gaßmann, J. Klucken,
and B.M. Eskofier. Sensor-based gait parameter extraction with deep
convolutional neural networks. IEEE journal of biomedical and health
informatics, 21(1):85–93, 2017.

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

10

(a) FV

(b) FAP

(c) FM L

Fig. 1: Mean pattern of the three ground reaction forces (GRF) enveloped by ± 1 standard deviations for each class. Data
normalized by body weight and 100% stance.

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

11

(a) FV

(b) FAP

(c) FM L

Fig. 2: Comparison of different PCA representations. The final dimensionality of the obtained representations is specified by
the amount of variance preserved in a particular projection, i.e. 98%, 95%, and 90%. Data normalized by body weight and
100% stance.

IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, DECEMBER 2017

12

1.3
0.9

1.2

35

0.9

0.8

1.1

30

0.8

0.7

1

25

0.7

0.6

0.9

20

0.6

FV1 [BW]

ST [s]
80

5

0.06

4

70

FV2 [BW]

0.02

0.9
TV2 [%ST]
0.3

0.2

20
-0.2

15

0.1

1
10

-0.3

0
FAP1 [BW]

FV3 [BW]

25

-0.1

2

TV3 [%ST]

1

3

0.04
60

1.1
50
40

TV1 [%ST]

0.08

1.2

60

TAP1 [%ST]

FAP2 [BW]

TAP2 [%ST]

FAP3 [BW]

0
90
80

12

0.08

10

0.06

8

-0.05

60

-0.1
TAP3 [%ST]
90

0.04

2

0
TML1 [%ST]

20

TML2 [%ST]

FML3 [BW]
4

70
0.04

2

60
0.02

0

0.7

0.02
0

FML2 [BW]

0.02

0.75

60

0.02

0.04

0.8
80
70

4
FML1 [BW]

0.06

0.04

6
70

0.08

40

0

50

-0.02
0

0.65

50
TML3 [%ST]

16

2

14

FMLAVG [BW]

35

4
3

40

25

-3

IF V1 [%BW"s]

2

-4

20

8
IF ML [%BW"s]

30
IF V2 [%BW"s]

1
IF V3 [%BW"s]

IF APDEC [%BW"s]

0
-0.2

10
5

2
-0.4

0.03

1

1.6

0.02

0.95

1.4

0.9

1.2

0

1

0.01

-5

-0.6

1

0.85
IF LAT [%BW"s]

IF MED [%BW"s]

COPANG [deg]

COP AP [FL]

COPDEV [FL]
12000

0.5

0.25

10000

0.5
0.2
0.4

0.4

0.15
0.1

0.3

0.3

0.05
0.2
COP ML [FL]

DECT [s]

-2000

10000

6000

4000

4000

-8000

2000

2000

-10000

LR0080 [N/s]

-8000

0.65

LR2080 [N/s]

5

1.4

4

1.2

3

1

UR8000 [N/s]

1
0.9
0.8

0.15

0.6

-12000

0.7

0.55

0.1

UR8020 [N/s]

-6000

0.7

0.2

-10000

-4000

8000

6000

ACCT [s]

-4000

COPV [FL/s]
-2000

8000

0.75

-6000

IF APACC [%BW"s]
1.8

15
3

IF AP [%BW"s]

-2

10
0

IF V [%BW"s]

-1

50
30

12

1

FAPAVG [BW]

5

18
3

40

-0.04
FVAVG [BW]

-2

DS [s]

STEPLEN [m]

STEPV [km/h]

STRIDET [s]

BF [Hz]

1.5
120

5

0.15

100

0.1

80

0.05

4

1.3
1.2

CAD [1/min]

normal
calcaneus
ankle
knee
hip

1.4

3

1.1

STEPWD [m]

STRLEN [m]

GV [km/h]

Fig. 3: Boxplots for all 52 GRF parameters. Each boxplot shows the median and the IQR (box) for each class (outliers
were removed for better visualization). Box-whiskers correspond to 1.5 of the box-length, thus show approximately ± 2.7
standard deviations. The overlap of distributions between the classes gives an impression of the parameters’ discriminative
power (inter-class variation). Data normalized by body weight and 100% stance, prior to the calculation of the parameters.

