MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946088430 · doi:10.1017/s0263574719000651

Learning and Reproduction of Therapist’s Semi-Periodic Motions during Robotic Rehabilitation

2019· article· en· W2946088430 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Martínez, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceRobotTask (project management)Computer sciencePopulationGaussianPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyComputer visionMachine learningEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The demand for rehabilitation services has increased in recent years due to population aging. Due to the limitations of therapist’s time and healthcare resources, robot-assisted rehabilitation is becoming an appealing, powerful, and economical solution. In this paper, we propose a solution that combines Learning from Demonstration (LfD) and robotic rehabilitation to save the therapist’s time and reduce the therapy costs when the therapy involves periodic or semi-periodic motions.We begin by modeling the therapist’s behavior (a periodic or semi-periodic motion) using a Fourier Series (FS). Later, when the therapist is no longer involved, the system reproduces the learned behavior modeled by the FS using a robot. A second goal is to combine the above with Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) and Gaussian Mixture Regression (GMR) to obtain a more flexible and generalizable reproduction of the therapist’s behavior. This algorithm allows learning and imitating repetitive movement tasks. Our experimental results show the application of these algorithms to repetitive motion task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticaSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207