For interpreting outcomes of clinical gait analysis, an accurate estimation of gait events, such as initial contact (IC) and toe-off (TO), is essential. Numerous algorithms to automatically identify timing of gait events have been developed based on various marker set configurations as input. However, a systematic overview of the effect of the marker selection on the accuracy of estimating gait event timing is lacking. Therefore, we aim to evaluate (1) if the marker selection influences the accuracy of kinematic algorithms for estimating gait event timings and (2) what the best marker location is to ensure the highest event timing accuracy across various gait patterns. 104 individuals with cerebral palsy (16.0 ± 8.6 years) and 31 typically developing controls (age 20.6 ± 7.8) performed clinical gait analysis, and were divided into two out of eight groups based on the orientation of their foot, in sagittal and frontal plane at mid-stance. 3D marker trajectories of 11 foot/ankle markers were used to estimate the gait event timings (IC, TO) using five commonly used kinematic algorithms. Heatmaps, for IC and TO timing per group were created showing the median detection error, compared to detection using vertical ground reaction forces, for each marker. Our findings indicate that median detection errors can be kept within 7 ms for IC and 13 ms for TO when optimizing the choice of marker and detection algorithm toward foot orientation in midstance. Our results highlight that the use of markers located on the midfoot is robust for detecting gait events across different gait patterns.

Background: To analyse and interpret gait patterns in pathological paediatric populations, accurate determination of the timing of specific gait events (e.g. initial contract – IC, or toe-off – TO) is essential. As currently used clinical identification methods are generally subjective, time-consuming, or limited to steps with force platform data, several techniques have been proposed based on processing of marker kinematics. However, until now, validation and standardization of these methods for use in diverse gait patterns remains lacking. Research questions: 1) What is the accuracy of available kinematics-based identification algorithms in determining the timing of IC and TO for diverse gait signatures? 2) Does automatic identification affect interpretation of spatio-temporal parameters?. Methods: 3D kinematic and kinetic data of 90 children were retrospectively analysed from a clinical gait database. Participants were classified into 3 gait categories: group A (toe-walkers), B (flat IC) and C (heel IC). Five kinematic algorithms (one modified) were implemented for two different foot marker configurations for both IC and TO and compared with clinical (visual and force-plate) identification using Bland-Altman analysis. The best-performing algorithm-marker configuration was used to compute spatio-temporal parameters (STP) of all gait trials. To establish whether the error associated with this configuration would affect clinical interpretation, the bias and limits of agreement were determined and compared against inter-trial variability established using visual identification. Results: Sagittal velocity of the heel (Group C) or toe marker configurations (Group A and B) was the most reliable indicator of IC, while the sagittal velocity of the hallux marker configuration performed best for TO. Biases for walking speed, stride time and stride length were within the respective inter-trial variability values. Significance: Automatic identification of gait events was dependent on algorithm-marker configuration, and best results were obtained when optimized towards specific gait patterns. Our data suggest that correct selection of automatic gait event detection approach will ensure that misinterpretation of STPs is avoided.