A comprehensive evaluation of motion sensor step-counting error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effect that walking speed, gender, leg length, motion sensor tilt angle, brand, and placement have on motion sensor step-counting error. Fifty-nine participants performed treadmill walking trials at 6 speeds while wearing 5 motion sensor brands placed on the anterior (Digiwalker, DW; Walk4Life, WFL; New Lifestyles, NL; Omron, OM), midaxillary (DW; WFL; NL; ActiGraph, AG), and posterior (DW, WFL, NL) aspects of the waistline. The anterior-placed NL and midaxillary-placed AG were the most accurate motion sensors. Motion sensor step-count error tended to decrease at faster walking speeds, with lesser tilt angles, and with an anterior waistline placement. Gender and leg length had no effect on motion sensor step-count error. We conclude that the NL and AG yielded the most accurate step counts at a range of walking speeds in individuals with different physical characteristics.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".