MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163026336 · doi:10.1121/1.1391240

An inverse dynamics approach to face animation

2001· article· en· W2163026336 on OpenAlexafffund
Michel Pitermann, Kevin G. Munhall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsKinematicsComputer scienceAnimationComputer facial animationFacial musclesArtificial intelligenceInverse kinematicsComputer visionElectromyographyInversion (geology)Computer animationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCommunicationComputer graphics (images)GeologyPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle-based models of the human face produce high quality animation but rely on recorded muscle activity signals or synthetic muscle signals that are often derived by trial and error. This paper presents a dynamic inversion of a muscle-based model (Lucero and Munhall, 1999) that permits the animation to be created from kinematic recordings of facial movements. Using a nonlinear optimizer (Powell's algorithm), the inversion produces a muscle activity set for seven muscles in the lower face that minimize the root mean square error between kinematic data recorded with OPTOTRAK and the corresponding nodes of the modeled facial mesh. This inverted muscle activity is then used to animate the facial model. In three tests of the inversion, strong correlations were observed for kinematics produced from synthetic muscle activity, for OPTOTRAK kinematics recorded from a talker for whom the facial model is morphologically adapted and finally for another talker with the model morphology adapted to a different individual. The correspondence between the animation kinematics and the three-dimensional OPTOTRAK data are very good and the animation is of high quality. Because the kinematic to electromyography (EMG) inversion is ill posed, there is no relation between the actual EMG and the inverted EMG. The overall redundancy of the motor system means that many different EMG patterns can produce the same kinematic output.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207