Online Segmentation of Human Motion for Automated Rehabilitation Exercise Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enable automated analysis of rehabilitation movements, an approach for accurately identifying and segmenting movement repetitions is required. This paper proposes an approach for online, automated segmentation and identification of movement segments from continuous time-series data of human movement, obtained from body-mounted inertial measurement units or from motion capture data. The proposed approach uses a two-stage identification and recognition process, based on velocity features and stochastic modeling of each motion to be identified. In the first stage, motion segment candidates are identified based on a characteristic sequence of velocity features such as velocity peaks and zero velocity crossings. In the second stage, hidden Markov models are used to accurately identify segment locations from the identified candidates. The proposed approach is capable of online segmentation and identification, enabling interactive feedback in rehabilitation applications. The approach is validated on 20 healthy subjects and four rehabilitation patients performing rehabilitation movements, achieving segmentation accuracy of 87% with user specific templates and 79%-83% accuracy with user-independent templates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it