Preliminary Investigation of Textile-Based Strain Sensors for the Detection of Human Gait Phases Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human gait analysis is a common but also challenging method to diagnose and characterize gait disorders. In recent years, wearable technologies have been investigated for gait analysis including gait phase detection with promising results. In this paper, we investigated the feasibility of a textile-based strain sensor integrated into an ankle brace to detect gait phases. This threadlike resistive sensor detects elongations and is, flexible and easy to integrate into textiles. In a laboratory study, five healthy subjects wearing the ankle brace were asked to walk at various low speeds while the sensor data were recorded. Three commonly used machine learning algorithms (random forest, support vector machines, and neural network) were investigated to differentiate between four phases (initial contact, mid-stance, pre-swing, swing) of the walking data. The random forest classifier performed best on our data set followed by neural network and support vector machines. Using to-fold cross-validation, an average accuracy of 95.49% ± 2.32% was achieved. This result compares well to other methods such as IMU-based technologies and demonstrates the feasibility of our approach of using textile-based strain sensors to detect gait phases in human walking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".