MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142812680 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2010.2047267

Robust Tracking of the Upper Limb for Functional Stroke Assessment

2010· article· en· W2142812680 on OpenAlexaff
Sonya Allin, Nancy A. Baker, Emily Eckel, Deva Ramanan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsStandard deviationUpper limbElbowMotion captureStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationTracking (education)Elbow flexionComputer scienceMotion (physics)Motion analysisCorrelation coefficientArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer visionMedicineStatisticsSurgeryPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a robust 3-D parts-based (PB) tracking system designed to follow the upper limb of stroke survivors during desktop activities. This system fits a probabilistic model of the arm to sequences of images taken from multiple angles. The arm model defines shapes and colors of limbs and limb configurations that are more or less likely. We demonstrate that the system is 1) robust to cluttered scenes and temporary occlusions, 2) accurate relative to a commercial motion capture device, and 3) capable of capturing kinematics that correlate with concurrent measures of post-stroke limb function. To evaluate the PB system, the functional motion of seven stroke survivors was measured concurrently with the PB system and a commercial motion capture system. In addition, functional motion was assessed by an expert using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and related to recorded kinematics. Standard deviation of differences in measured elbow angles between systems was 5.7°; deviation in hand velocity estimates was 2.6 cm/s. Several statistics, moreover, correlated strongly with FMA scores. Standard deviation in shoulder velocity had a significant correlation coefficient with FMA score below -0.75 when measured with all systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207