Wearable step counting using a force myography-based ankle strap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Step counting can be used to estimate the activity level of people in daily life; however, commercially available accelerometer-based step counters have shown inaccuracies in detection of low-speed walking steps (<2.2 km/h), and thus are not suitable for older adults who usually walk at low speeds. This proof-of-concept study explores the feasibility of using force myography recorded at the ankle to detect low-speed steps. METHODS: Eight young healthy participants walked on a treadmill at three speeds (1, 1.5, and 2.0 km/h) while their force myography signals were recorded at the ankle using a customized strap embedded with an array of eight force-sensing resistors. A K-nearest neighbour model was trained and tested with the recorded data. Additional three mainstream machine learning algorithms were also employed to evaluate the performance of force myography band as a pedometer. RESULTS: Results showed a low error rate of the step detection (<1.5%) at all three walking speeds. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates not only the feasibility of the proposed approach but also the potential of the investigated technology to reliably monitor low-speed step counting.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".