How Magnetic Disturbance Influences the Attitude and Heading in Magnetic and Inertial Sensor-Based Orientation Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancements in micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) technologies, magnetic and inertial sensors are becoming more and more accurate, lightweight, smaller in size as well as low-cost, which in turn boosts their applications in human movement analysis. However, challenges still exist in the field of sensor orientation estimation, where magnetic disturbance represents one of the obstacles limiting their practical application. The objective of this paper is to systematically analyze exactly how magnetic disturbances affects the attitude and heading estimation for a magnetic and inertial sensor. First, we reviewed four major components dealing with magnetic disturbance, namely decoupling attitude estimation from magnetic reading, gyro bias estimation, adaptive strategies of compensating magnetic disturbance and sensor fusion algorithms. We review and analyze the features of existing methods of each component. Second, to understand each component in magnetic disturbance rejection, four representative sensor fusion methods were implemented, including gradient descent algorithms, improved explicit complementary filter, dual-linear Kalman filter and extended Kalman filter. Finally, a new standardized testing procedure has been developed to objectively assess the performance of each method against magnetic disturbance. Based upon the testing results, the strength and weakness of the existing sensor fusion methods were easily examined, and suggestions were presented for selecting a proper sensor fusion algorithm or developing new sensor fusion method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".