Using Step Size and Lower Limb Segment Orientation from Multiple Low-Cost Wearable Inertial/Magnetic Sensors for Pedestrian Navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates the use of multiple low-cost inertial/magnetic sensors as a pedestrian navigation system for indoor positioning. This research looks at the problem of pedestrian navigation in a practical manner by investigating dead-reckoning methods using low-cost sensors. This work uses the estimated sensor orientation angles to compute the step size from the kinematics of a skeletal model. The orientations of limbs are represented by the tilt angles estimated from the inertial measurements, especially the pitch angle. In addition, different step size estimation methods are compared. A sensor data logging system is developed in order to record all motion data from every limb segment using a single platform and similar types of sensors. A skeletal model of five segments is chosen to model the forward kinematics of the lower limbs. A treadmill walk experiment with an optical motion capture system is conducted for algorithm evaluation. The mean error of the estimated orientation angles of the limbs is less than 6 degrees. The results show that the step length mean error is 3.2 cm, the left stride length mean error is 12.5 cm, and the right stride length mean error is 9 cm. The expected positioning error is less than 5% of the total distance travelled.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".