Musical Stairs: A motivational therapy tool for children with disabilities featuring automated detection of stair-climbing gait events via inertial sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stair-climbing is a key component of rehabilitation therapies for children with physical disabilities. This paper reports on the design of a system, Musical Stairs, to provide auditory feedback during stair-climbing therapies. Musical Stairs is composed of two foot-mounted inertial sensors, a step detection algorithm, and an auditory feedback response. In Phase 1, we establish its clinical feasibility via a Wizard-of-Oz AB/BA cross-over design with 17 children, aged 4-6 years, having diverse diagnoses and gait abilities. Self-, therapist- and blinded-observer reports indicated increased motivation with auditory feedback. Phase 2 describes the construction of a database comprised of synchronized video and inertial data associated with 1568 steps up and down stairs completed by 26 children aged 4-6 years with diverse diagnoses and gait. Lastly, in Phase 3, data from 18 children in the database were used to train a rule-based step detection algorithm based on local minima in the acceleration profile and the foot's swing angle. A step detection rate of 96% [SD=3%] and false positive rate of 6% [SD=5%] were achieved with an independent test set (n=8). Recommendations for future development and evaluation are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".