Detecting Heel Strike and toe off Events Using Kinematic Methods and LSTM Models
Authors: Longbin Zhang, Zhizhang Li, Xinyi Fu, Yi Xie, Zekun Liu, Xiaoyue Yan, Suiyuan Wang, Te Zhang, Hui Zhang, Kailun Yang, Tsung-Lin Wu, Prayook Jatesiktat, Ananda Sidarta, Wei Tech Ang
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Hunan University, Changsha, China · School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Fourth Hospital of Changsha, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China · Department of Stomatology, Hunan Provincial People’s Hospital, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China · Rehabilitation Research Institute of Singapore, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Accurate gait event detection is crucial for gait analysis, rehabilitation, and assistive technology, particularly in exoskeleton control, where precise identification of stance and swing phases is essential. This study evaluated the performance of seven kinematics-based methods and a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model for detecting heel strike and toe-off events across 4363 gait cycles from 588 able-bodied subjects. The results indicated that while the Zeni et al. method achieved the highest accuracy among kinematics-based approaches, other methods exhibited systematic biases or required dataset-specific tuning. The LSTM model performed comparably to Zeni et al., providing a data-driven alternative without systematic bias. These findings highlight the potential of deep learning-based approaches for gait event detection while emphasizing the need for further validation in clinical populations and across diverse gait conditions. Future research will explore the generalizability of these methods in pathological populations, such as individuals with post-stroke conditions and knee osteoarthritis, as well as their robustness across varied gait conditions and data collection settings to enhance their applicability in rehabilitation and exoskeleton control.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of gait event identification using kinematics-based or machine learning models. The inputs for these models consist of key marker trajectories from the toe, heel, or pelvis, acquired and post-processed using a 3D motion capture system.
Method
Markers
HS Detection Features
TO Detection Features
Foot trajectories relative to pelvis (Zeni et al. 2008)
Heel, toe, and pelvis
Local maximum horizontal position of the heel marker relative to the pelvis
Local minimal horizontal position of the toe marker relative to the pelvis
High-pass filtered foot markers (Desailly et al. 2009)
Heel and toe
First maximum between high pass filtered (0.5 * gait frequency) horizontal heel marker trajectory
Last minimum between high pass filtered (1.1 * gait frequency) horizontal toe marker trajectory
Foot markers velocity extreme (O’Connor et al. 2007)
Heel and toe
Local minimal vertical velocity of the mid-point of heel and toe markers
Local maximum vertical velocity of the mid-point of heel and toe markers
Foot markers Velocity Threshold (Ghoussayni et al. 2004)
Heel and toe
Sagittal velocity of heel marker lower than 50 cm/s
Sagittal velocity of toe marker higher than 50 cm/s
Foot markers acceleration extreme (Hreljac et al. 2000)
Heel and toe
Local maximum vertical acceleration of the heel marker, with the condition that the derivative of the acceleration (jerk) was zero.
Local maximum horizontal acceleration of the toe marker, also with the constraint that the relevant jerk was zero
Foot markers acceleration extreme (Hsue et al. 2007)
Heel and toe
Local minimal horizontal acceleration of heel marker
Local maximum horizontal acceleration of toe marker
TABLE I: THE KINEMATICS-BASED APPROACHES USED TO DETECT HS AND TO
Fig. 2: The boxplot of prediction errors (time differences) between the measured and calculated heel strike (left) and toe off (right) events using various kinematics-based methods and the LSTM model.
Fig. 3: The histogram of time differences between the measured and calculated heel strike (left) and toe off (right) events using various kinematics-based methods and the LSTM model.
Method
Heel Strike
Toe off
Mean (ms)
STD (ms)
Mean (ms)
STD (ms)
Zeni et al.
4.78
9.56
-8.66
6.05
Desailly et al.
22.17
8.66
7.45
7.62
O’Connor et al.
46.73
7.72
-16.27
8.35
Ghoussayni et al.
50.49
11.28
-61.96
8.67
Hreljac et al.
32.28
31.56
4.70
8.14
TABLE II: MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION (STD) OF TIME DIFFERENCES FOR HEEL STRIKE AND TOE OFF EVENTS ACROSS KINEMATICS-BASED METHODS AND THE LSTM MODEL.
Gait analysis uses movement and biomechanical signals to characterize walking, recognize people, assess health, and guide rehabilitation or locomotion.
This study evaluated personalized gait phase estimation for stroke survivors using functional inertial measurement unit (IMU) alignment and two-stage sequential adaptation of models pre-trained on healthy gait. The estimator used signals from a thigh-mounted IMU. Heel force-sensitive resistor measurements provided reference phase labels for offline adaptation and evaluation. Stage 1 established a distillation-regularized participant-specific model, and Stage 2 performed conditional refinement using low-rank adaptation. Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN), and Transformer models were evaluated in five stroke survivors walking with a powered knee exoskeleton using leave-one-subject-out hyperparameter selection and sequential test-then-adapt Stage 2 replay. Relative to the non-adapted baselines, Stage 1+2 reduced the mean participant-wise phase root mean square error by 84.2%, 77.0%, and 60.7%, respectively. The Transformer achieved the lowest final error (2.90 +- 1.13$% of the gait cycle) and heel-strike timing error (23.7 +- 4.5ms). Policy-specific ablations showed that every-cycle updates generally produced the lowest or near-lowest error, whereas conditional updating reduced the update frequency with small accuracy differences. After personalization, alignment produced model-dependent changes in phase error while preserving or improving heel-strike detection and reducing heel-strike timing error for the LSTM and Transformer. Concurrent embedded tests showed that the TCN and Transformer maintained 100-Hz inference during Stage 2 updates without deadline misses, whereas the LSTM missed the 10-ms deadline in 6.6% of inferences. All updates completed within 0.8s. These results support the offline feasibility and embedded computational timing of the proposed framework for exoskeleton-assisted walking.
Hyungseok Ryu, Pilwon Hur
Department of Mechanical and Robotics Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), Gwangju 61005, Republic of Korea
Gait recognition enables non-intrusive, privacy-preserving identification but suffers in uncontrolled environments due to illumination and motion sensitivity of conventional cameras. In this work, we explore gait recognition using event cameras, which offer microsecond temporal resolution and high dynamic range, naturally capturing robust dynamic cues and suppressing static noise. Existing event-based approaches typically aggregate event streams into event images over long time windows, thereby discarding fine-grained motion dynamics critical for gait recognition. Therefore, we propose EventGait, an end-to-end dual-stream framework that separately models motion and shape while preserving the advantages of events. Our dynamic stream leverages a Mixture of Spiking Experts (MoSE) with diverse neuron constants for robust dynamic perception across complex motion and illumination scenes, while the static stream learns dense shape representations via Cross-modal Structure Alignment (CroSA) with large vision foundation models. To address the absence of large-scale event-based gait datasets, we introduce a synthesis pipeline and release two new benchmarks: SUSTech1K-E and CCGR-Mini-E. Extensive experiments have shown that event-based gait recognition not only achieves results comparable to camera-based gait recognition under normal conditions but also significantly outperforms it in low-light scenarios. Our approach sets a new state of the art on both synthesized and real-world event-based gait benchmarks, highlighting the robustness and potential of event-driven gait analysis. The code and datasets are released at https://github.com/QUEAHREN/EventGait.
Senyan Xu, Shuai Chen, Chuanfu Shen +4
University of Science and Technology of China · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Estimating hip muscle forces and joint moments during gait typically relies on musculoskeletal simulation, which is informative but time-consuming and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This study developed a deep learning framework to predict these hip dynamics parameters directly from lower-limb gait kinematics and compared three representative sequence models under a unified protocol. Gait data were collected from 60 healthy adults under three metronome-guided cadence conditions. Ten bilateral lower-limb joint angles were used as inputs, and OpenSim-derived hip muscle forces and hip joint moments were used as reference outputs. Three deep learning models of LSTM, Transformer, and Mamba were trained and evaluated using the same subject-level split, preprocessing pipeline, and metrics. The best model was then directly tested on an external cohort of 9 patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) without retraining. In the healthy-subject benchmark, Transformer achieved the best subject-level mean performance for both hip muscle force prediction (RMSE = 1.33 N/kg, MAE = 0.57 N/kg, R2 = 0.819) and hip joint moment prediction (RMSE = 0.11 Nm/kg, MAE = 0.07 Nm/kg, R2 = 0.862), with similar advantages across walking cadences. In zero-shot external validation, Transformer retained moderate predictive ability in ONFH for hip muscle force prediction (RMSE = 1.51 N/kg, MAE = 0.70 N/kg, R2 = 0.537) and hip joint moment prediction (RMSE = 0.17 Nm/kg, MAE = 0.12 Nm/kg, R2 = 0.569). These findings support the feasibility of estimating hip dynamics from gait kinematics, identify Transformer as a strong baseline, and highlight the need for broader pathological validation and improved generalization before clinical application.
Jiaqi Zhang, Ji Hou, Qing Sun +2
Capital University of Physical Education and Sports. · Beijing Institute of Technology. · 3Beijing Key Laboratory of Interdisciplinary Intelligent Technologies of Sports, Medicine and Engineering.