MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Musical Stairs: A motivational therapy tool for children with disabilities featuring automated detection of stair-climbing gait events via inertial sensors

2017· article· en· W2573915071 on OpenAlexafffund
Ajmal Khan, Elaine Biddiss

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsStairsStair climbingGaitClimbingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInertial measurement unitComputer scienceGait analysisPsychologyHuman–computer interactionSimulationEngineeringMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207