MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1637134179 · doi:10.1109/icorr.2015.7281278

A wearable sensor system for rehabilitation apllications

2015· article· en· W1637134179 on OpenAlexaff
Gautam P. Sadarangani, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerComputer scienceRehabilitationHuman–computer interactionEmbedded systemMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper an easy-to-use, wearable sensor system capable of deciphering upper-limb based functional tasks associated with stroke rehabilitation is introduced. Such a system can assist the therapist with monitoring a patient's progress during rehabilitation, and hence can increase the efficiency of the rehabilitation process. The developed system provides quantitative, real-time feedback of a user's functional activity. The system is designed to detect the successful completion of functional tasks that involve the grasping, movement, and subsequent release of an object. The developed system consists of an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) attached to a band, embedded with force sensitive resistors for extracting Force Myography (FMG) data. The band is wrapped around the user's forearm for the purpose of detecting the onset of a grasp or release with the use of a Neural Network for data classification. Upon detection of a grasp and subsequent release, the device calculates the distance achieved during the motion using data captured from the attached IMU as a measure of task quality. The system's ability to detect the completion of three functional tasks was evaluated with nine healthy volunteers. The system achieved an average accuracy of 92.67%. Experimental results are presented and discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→