MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053018103 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6090134

Optimal trajectory planning for a constrained functional electrical stimulation-based human walking

2011· article· en· W2053018103 on OpenAlexaff
Nitin Sharma, Richard B. Stein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional electrical stimulationTrajectoryGaitComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPreferred walking speedMuscle fatigueElectrical muscle stimulationSimulationStimulationElectromyographyMedicinePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to the muscle recruitment during voluntary walking, only a limited number of muscles are activated during functional electrical stimulation (FES)-based walking. This implies that a trajectory designed or recorded from the normal human walking data may not be the best choice for tracking control. Another major challenge during FES-based walking is the rapid onset of muscle fatigue. Two methods to reduce fatigue during FES-based walking are employing an orthosis and minimizing muscle activations. To deal with these aforementioned challenges, this paper presents firstly a dynamic model representing FES-elicited walking constrained by an orthosis and a walker. Secondly, this paper deals with the design of optimal stimulation and force profiles (instead of gait-trajectories from able-bodied humans) that minimize muscle activations via FES and arm reaction forces from the walker. Ten walking steps are simulated to show the feasibility of the walking model and optimization algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→