A Wearable Gait Phase Detection System Based on Force Myography Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Quantitative evaluation of gait parameters can provide useful information for constructing individuals’ gait profile, diagnosing gait abnormalities, and better planning of rehabilitation schemes to restore normal gait pattern. Objective determination of gait phases in a gait cycle is a key requirement in gait analysis applications; (2) Methods: In this study, the feasibility of using a force myography-based technique for a wearable gait phase detection system is explored. In this regard, a force myography band is developed and tested with nine participants walking on a treadmill. The collected force myography data are first examined sample-by-sample and classified into four phases using Linear Discriminant Analysis. The gait phase events are then detected from these classified samples using a set of supervisory rules; (3) Results: The results show that the force myography band can correctly detect more than 99.9% of gait phases with zero insertions and only four deletions over 12,965 gait phase segments. The average temporal error of gait phase detection is 55.2 ms, which translates into 2.1% error with respect to the corresponding labelled stride duration; (4) Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the feasibility of force myography techniques as viable solutions in developing wearable gait phase detection systems.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".