A Multi-Sensor Matched Filter Approach to Robust Segmentation of Assisted Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with mobility impairments related to age, injury, or disease, often require the help of an assistive device (AD) such as a cane to ambulate, increase safety, and improve overall stability. Instrumenting these devices has been proposed as a non-invasive way to proactively monitor an individual's reliance on the AD while also obtaining information about behaviors and changes in gait. A critical first step in the analysis of these data, however, is the accurate processing and segmentation of the sensor data to extract relevant gait information. In this paper, we present a highly accurate multi-sensor-based gait segmentation algorithm that is robust to a variety of walking conditions using an AD. A matched filtering approach based on loading information is used in conjunction with an angular rate reversal and peak detection technique, to identify important gait events. The algorithm is tested over a variety of terrains using a hybrid sensorized cane, capable of measuring loading, mobility, and stability information. The reliability and accuracy of the proposed multi-sensor matched filter (MSMF) algorithm is compared with variations of the commonly employed gyroscope peak detection (GPD) algorithm. Results of an experiment with a group of 30 healthy participants walking over various terrains demonstrated the ability of the proposed segmentation algorithm to reliably and accurately segment gait events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".