Inertial measurement unit

About: Inertial measurement unit is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 13326 publications have been published within this topic receiving 189083 citations. The topic is also known as: IMU.

Fast Relative Pose Calibration for Visual and Inertial Sensors

Abstract: Accurate vision-aided inertial navigation depends on proper calibration of the relative pose of the camera and the inertial measurement unit (IMU). Calibration errors introduce bias in the overall motion estimate, degrading navigation performance - sometimes dramatically. However, existing camera-IMU calibration techniques are difficult, time-consuming and often require additional complex apparatus. In this paper, we formulate the camera-IMU relative pose calibration problem in a filtering framework, and propose a calibration algorithm which requires only a planar camera calibration target. The algorithm uses an unscented Kalman filter to estimate the pose of the IMU in a global reference frame and the 6-DoF transform between the camera and the IMU. Results from simulations and experiments with a low-cost solid-state IMU demonstrate the accuracy of the approach.

Cooperative relative positioning of mobile users by fusing IMU inertial and UWB ranging information

Abstract: Relative positioning between multiple mobile users is essential for many applications, such as search and rescue in disaster areas or human social interaction. Inertial-measurement unit (IMU) is promising to determine the change of position over short periods of time, but it is very sensitive to error accumulation over long term run. By equipping the mobile users with ranging unit, e.g. ultra-wideband (UWB), it is possible to achieve accurate relative positioning by trilateration-based approaches. As compared to vision or laser-based sensors, the UWB does not need to be with in line-of-sight and provides accurate distance estimation. However, UWB does not provide any bearing information and the communication range is limited, thus UWB alone cannot determine the user location without any ambiguity. In this paper, we propose an approach to combine IMU inertial and UWB ranging measurement for relative positioning between multiple mobile users without the knowledge of the infrastructure. We incorporate the UWB and the IMU measurement into a probabilistic-based framework, which allows to cooperatively position a group of mobile users and recover from positioning failures. We have conducted extensive experiments to demonstrate the benefits of incorporating IMU inertial and UWB ranging measurements.

Pose Estimation and Calibration Algorithms for Vision and Inertial Sensors

Abstract: This thesis deals with estimating position and orientation in real-time, using measurements from vision and inertial sensors. A system has been developed to solve this problem in unprepared environ ...

Convergent Validity of a Wearable Sensor System for Measuring Sub-Task Performance during the Timed Up-and-Go Test

Abstract: Background: The timed-up-and-go test (TUG) is one of the most commonly used tests of physical function in clinical practice and for research outcomes. Inertial sensors have been used to parse the TUG test into its composite phases (rising, walking, turning, etc.), but have not validated this approach against an optoelectronic gold-standard, and to our knowledge no studies have published the minimal detectable change of these measurements. Methods: Eleven adults performed the TUG three times each under normal and slow walking conditions, and 3 m and 5 m walking distances, in a 12-camera motion analysis laboratory. An inertial measurement unit (IMU) with tri-axial accelerometers and gyroscopes was worn on the upper-torso. Motion analysis marker data and IMU signals were analyzed separately to identify the six main TUG phases: sit-to-stand, 1st walk, 1st turn, 2nd walk, 2nd turn, and stand-to-sit, and the absolute agreement between two systems analyzed using intra-class correlation (ICC, model 2) analysis. The minimal detectable change (MDC) within subjects was also calculated for each TUG phase. Results: The overall difference between TUG sub-tasks determined using 3D motion capture data and the IMU sensor data was 0.90), but less for chair activity (ICC range 0.5–0.9) and typically poor for the turn time (ICC < 0.4). MDC values for total TUG time ranged between 2–4 s or 12–22% of the TUG time measurement. MDC of the sub-task times were higher proportionally, being 20–60% of the sub-task duration. Conclusions: We conclude that a commercial IMU can be used for quantifying the TUG phases with accuracy sufficient for clinical applications; however, the MDC when using inertial sensors is not necessarily improved over less sophisticated measurement tools.