<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ISPRS-Annals</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ISPRS-Annals</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2194-9050</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/isprs-annals-XI-1-2026-227-2026</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Multi-sensor Modelling for Temporal Gait Analysis: Evaluating IMU and UWB-Based Approaches</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sahu</surname>
<given-names>Aditi</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kumar</surname>
<given-names>Ashwani</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Goel</surname>
<given-names>Salil</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group><aff id="aff1">
<label>1</label>
<addr-line>Geoinformatics Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India</addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>03</day>
<month>07</month>
<year>2026</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>XI-1-2026</volume>
<fpage>227</fpage>
<lpage>234</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright: &#x000a9; 2026 Aditi Sahu et al.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri"  xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/XI-1-2026/227/2026/isprs-annals-XI-1-2026-227-2026.html">This article is available from https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/XI-1-2026/227/2026/isprs-annals-XI-1-2026-227-2026.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/XI-1-2026/227/2026/isprs-annals-XI-1-2026-227-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/XI-1-2026/227/2026/isprs-annals-XI-1-2026-227-2026.pdf</self-uri>
<abstract>
<p>Wearable sensors are essential for gait analysis outside of traditional laboratory environments. However, selection of the right sensor technology involves several trade-offs. Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) offer high temporal resolution which are ideal for detecting gait events but they suffer from drift. Ultra-Wideband (UWB) provides stable spatial data, but are less precise for detecting event timing. This paper presents a comparative study of three distinct foot-mounted sensor methodologies for heel strike detection and cadence estimation: (1) IMU-Only approach, (2) UWB-Only approach, and (3) a multi-sensor IMU+UWB fusion approach. Each method is evaluated against a camera-based ground truth system using data from four subjects. Results show the IMU-Only method is inconsistent, with moderate event precision (Avg. F1: 0.798), temporal accuracy (Avg. MAE: 47.99 ms), and subject-dependent cadence accuracy (Avg. Acc: 89.59%). The UWB-Only method provides robust event detection (Avg. F1: 0.811) with similar temporal error (Avg. MAE: 49.0 ms) but is exceptionally accurate for cadence estimation (Avg. Acc: 96.94%). The IMU+UWB fusion approach achieves the highest event precision (Avg. Precision: 0.835) and the best temporal accuracy (Avg. MAE: 46.51 ms), while also maintaining robust cadence accuracy (Avg. Acc: 95.62%). In conclusion, while the UWB-Only method is ideal for cadence-only applications, the IMU+UWB fusion approach provides the best overall balance of high event precision, superior temporal accuracy, and reliable cadence estimation.</p>
</abstract>
<counts><page-count count="8"/></counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body/>
<back>
</back>
</article>