Use of an Enactive Insole for Reducing the Risk of Falling on Different Types of Soil Using Vibrotactile Cueing for the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our daily activities imply displacements on various types of soil. For persons with gait disorder or losing functional autonomy, walking on some types of soil could be challenging because of the risk of falling it represents. METHODS: In this paper, we present, in a first part, the use of an enactive shoe for an automatic differentiation of several types of soil. In a second part, using a second improved prototype (an enactive insole), twelve participants with Parkinson's disease (PD) and nine age-matched controls have performed the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test on six types of soil with and without cueing. The frequency of the cueing was set at 10% above the cadence computed at the lower risk of falling (walking over the concrete). Depending on the cadence computed at the lower risk, the enactive insole activates a vibrotactile cueing aiming to improve gait and balance control. Finally, a risk index is computed using gait parameters in relation to given type of soil. RESULTS: The frequency analysis of the heel strike vibration allows the differentiation of various types of soil. The risk computed is associated to an appropriate rhythmic cueing in order to improve balance and gait impairment. The results show that a vibrotactile cueing could help to reduce the risk of falling. CONCLUSIONS: Firstly, this paper demonstrates the feasibility of reducing the risk of falling while walking on different types of soil using vibrotactile cueing. We found a significant difference and a significant decrease in the computed risks of falling for most of types of soil especially for deformable soils which can lead to fall. Secondly, heel strike provides an approximation of the impulse response of the soil that can be analyzed with time and frequency-domain modeling. From these analyses, an index is computed enabling differentiation the types of soil.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".