Development and evaluation of two posture-tracking user interfaces for occupational health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spinal column requires special care through exercises focused on muscle strengthening, flexibility, and mobility to minimize the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders that may affect the quality of life. Guidelines for spinal column exercises are commonly presented through printed and multimedia guides accompanied with demonstrations performed by a physiotherapist, occupational health expert, or physical fitness trainer. However, existing guides lack interaction and oral explanations may not always be clear to the user, leading to decreased engagement and motivation to start, continue, or complete an exercise program. In this article, we present two interactive and engaging posture-tracking user interfaces intended to promote proper spinal column exercise form. One user interface employs a wooden manikin with an integrated inertial measurement unit to provide a tangible user interaction. The other user interface presents a mobile application that provides instructions and explanations about the exercises. Both user interfaces allow recording key postures during the exercise for reference and feedback. We compared the usability of the interfaces through a series of flexion and extension exercises, monitored with an inertial measuring unit worn around the torso, and a Microsoft Kinect V2 vision-based sensor. Although no significant differences between the manikin user interface and the mobile application were found in terms of usability, the inertial measurement unit provided more accurate and reliable data in comparison to the Microsoft Kinect V2 as a result of body occlusions in front of the sensor caused during the torso flexion. Although both user interfaces provide different experiences and performed well, we believe that a combination of both will improve user engagement and motivation, while providing a more accurate motion profile.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".