Accuracy of Inertial Motion Sensors in Static, Quasistatic, and Complex Dynamic Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial motion sensors (IMSs) combine three sensors to produce a reportedly stable and accurate orientation estimate in three dimensions. Although accuracy has been reported within the range of 2 deg of error by manufacturers, the sensors are rarely tested in the challenging motion present in human motion. Their accuracy was tested in static, quasistatic, and dynamic situations against gold-standard Vicon camera data. It was found that static and quasistatic rms error was even less than manufacturers' technical specifications. Quasistatic rms error was minimal at 0.3 deg (+/-0.15 deg SD) on the roll axis, 0.29 deg (+/-0.20 deg SD) on the pitch axis, and 0.73 deg (+/-0.81 deg SD) on the yaw axis. The dynamic rms error was between 1.9 deg and 3.5 deg on the main axes of motion but it increased considerably on off-axis during planar pendulum motion. Complex arm motion in the forward reaching plane proved to be a greater challenge for the sensors to track but results are arguably better than previously reported studies considering the large range of motion used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".