Automatic Detection of Compensation During Robotic Stroke Rehabilitation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic stroke rehabilitation therapy can greatly increase the efficiency of therapy delivery. However, when left unsupervised, users often compensate for limitations in affected muscles and joints by recruiting unaffected muscles and joints, leading to undesirable rehabilitation outcomes. This paper aims to develop a computer vision system that augments robotic stroke rehabilitation therapy by automatically detecting such compensatory motions. Nine stroke survivors and ten healthy adults participated in this study. All participants completed scripted motions using a table-top rehabilitation robot. The healthy participants also simulated three types of compensatory motions. The 3-D trajectories of upper body joint positions tracked over time were used for multiclass classification of postures. A support vector machine (SVM) classifier detected lean-forward compensation from healthy participants with excellent accuracy (AUC = 0.98, F1 = 0.82), followed by trunk-rotation compensation (AUC = 0.77, F1 = 0.57). Shoulder-elevation compensation was not well detected (AUC = 0.66, F1 = 0.07). A recurrent neural network (RNN) classifier, which encodes the temporal dependency of video frames, obtained similar results. In contrast, F1-scores in stroke survivors were low for all three compensations while using RNN: lean-forward compensation (AUC = 0.77, F1 = 0.17), trunk-rotation compensation (AUC = 0.81, F1 = 0.27), and shoulder-elevation compensation (AUC = 0.27, F1 = 0.07). The result was similar while using SVM. To improve detection accuracy for stroke survivors, future work should focus on predefining the range of motion, direct camera placement, delivering exercise intensity tantamount to that of real stroke therapies, adjusting seat height, and recording full therapy sessions.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".