MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069097276 · doi:10.1109/icvr.2013.6662084

Evaluation of Kinect skeletal tracking in a virtual reality rehabilitation system for upper limb hemiparesis

2013· article· en· W2069097276 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Tao, Philippe S. Archambault, M. Levin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionVirtual realityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceKinematicsTracking (education)Match movingTrunkRehabilitationTracking systemMotion captureElbowMotion (physics)MedicineAnatomyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the kinematic validity of Microsoft Kinect skeletal tracking for use with an upper limb virtual reality rehabilitation system. We determined the extent to which Kinect tracking of hand position, elbow angle, and trunk position matched that recorded by a motion tracking system over a range of Kinect camera positions. The optimal Kinect camera position was between 1.45m and 1.75m from the user at 0.15m left or right. Tracking error of the Kinect should be considered when the system is used in the clinical setting.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations75
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207