Resource · Remote and longitudinal measurement

How can gait be assessed remotely outside a gait laboratory?

By Agile Kinetic · Published 16 September 2026

Short answer

Gait can be assessed remotely using smartphone inertial sensors or markerless video, delivered as a secure browser link. These methods measure a narrower set of parameters than an instrumented gait laboratory but can be repeated far more often, wherever the person is. They extend measurement rather than replacing specialist laboratory analysis.

The methods available, side by side

Comparison of methods for assessing gait
Method	Measures well	Main constraint
Clinical observation	Overall pattern, compensation, safety, clinical context	Subjective; hard to compare between clinicians or over time
Instrumented gait laboratory	Full 3D joint kinematics and ground reaction forces	Requires travel, specialist staff and equipment; rarely repeated
Pressure walkway	Spatiotemporal measures and foot pressure distribution	Fixed installation; limited walking distance; clinic-bound
Dedicated wearable IMUs	Detailed multi-segment and side-specific gait measures	Devices must be procured, fitted, charged, synchronised and returned
Smartphone inertial sensors	Gait speed, cadence, step and stride length, gait timing	Accuracy is parameter-specific; sensor and placement variation
Video and markerless analysis	Visible joint position, joint angles, range of motion, repetitions	Camera view, lighting and occlusion; out-of-plane movement is hard

None of these is universally better. They differ in what they measure, how precisely, and how much friction stands between the person and a completed assessment.

Clinical observation

Watching someone walk remains indispensable. An experienced clinician reads compensation strategies, pain avoidance, confidence and safety in a way no sensor does, and interprets all of it in the person’s clinical context.

Its weakness is comparability. Observation is not readily quantified, differs between observers, and is difficult to compare against a description recorded months earlier. Objective measurement complements it rather than replacing it.

Instrumented gait laboratory

Marker-based 3D motion capture with force plates is the reference standard, and the method other approaches are validated against. It resolves full three-dimensional joint kinematics and the forces involved.

It is also the least accessible option: a dedicated facility, calibration and marker placement, specialist analysis time, and a journey for the person being assessed. For complex surgical planning or biomechanical research this is entirely justified. For measuring whether someone is walking better than last month, it is unavailable to almost everyone.

Pressure walkway

An instrumented mat or walkway records where and how hard each foot lands, producing spatiotemporal gait measures and pressure distribution with good consistency.

It is a clinic-based installation, and the walking distance is limited to the length of the mat, which constrains how representative the captured walking is of normal walking.

Dedicated wearable IMUs

Research-grade inertial sensors strapped to the body offer high, consistent sampling and firm fixation. Using several at once enables side-specific and multi-segment analysis that a single sensor cannot provide, and they can record over long periods.

The cost is operational: procurement, correct fitting, charging, synchronisation, collection and maintenance. At small scale this is manageable; across a whole service it becomes the dominant expense and the main source of missing data.

Smartphone inertial sensors

The same sensing principle, using the device the person already owns and carries. This removes almost all logistics, which is what makes frequent repeat measurement realistic.

Best suited to gait speed, cadence, step and stride length and gait timing.
Agreement with laboratory reference methods varies by measure — temporal measures do best, double-support measures worst.
A single waist-positioned phone cannot readily distinguish left from right.
Sensor hardware and sampling behaviour differ between phone models.

Video and markerless approaches

Camera-based analysis estimates body keypoints from video and derives joint angles and range of motion. It sees things inertial sensing cannot — where a limb actually is — and needs nothing attached to the body.

It depends heavily on the camera view. Movement travelling towards or away from the camera is difficult to resolve, and occlusion or poor lighting degrades the estimate. Agreement with laboratory measurement is movement-specific.

A generic low-friction remote workflow

1A secure link is sent to the person, tied to them and time-limited.
2The browser requests sensor or camera permission, and a short calibration or setup step confirms the capture will be usable.
3Clear on-screen instructions explain exactly what to do and where to do it.
4The person walks the prescribed protocol while the assessment records.
5The captured data is processed and quality-checked, with poor captures flagged rather than silently reported.
6Results are returned to the authorised clinician or researcher, alongside previous assessments so change is visible.

The design goal is that the person has as few decisions to make as possible. Most failed remote assessments fail at setup, not at measurement.

What MoveLab’s own evidence covers

MoveLab’s published gait validation was conducted in 25 healthy adults, in a controlled laboratory, with the smartphone secured in a waist pouch. It provides peer-reviewed comparison against marker-based 3D motion capture for that configuration and population.