An Effective and Efficient Method for Detecting Hands in Egocentric Videos for Rehabilitation Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) report upper limb function as their top recovery priority. To accurately represent the true impact of new interventions on patient function and independence, evaluation should occur in a natural setting. Wearable cameras can be used to monitor hand function at home, using computer vision to automatically analyze the resulting videos (egocentric video). A key step in this process, hand detection, is difficult to do robustly and reliably, hindering deployment of a complete monitoring system in the home and community. We propose an accurate and efficient hand detection method that uses a simple combination of existing detection and tracking algorithms. Methods: Detection, tracking, and combination methods were evaluated on a new hand detection dataset, consisting of 167,622 frames of egocentric videos collected on 17 individuals with SCI performing activities of daily living in a home simulation laboratory. Results: The F1-scores for the best detector and tracker alone (SSD and Median Flow) were 0.90$\pm$0.07 and 0.42$\pm$0.18, respectively. The best combination method, in which a detector was used to initialize and reset a tracker, resulted in an F1-score of 0.87$\pm$0.07 while being two times faster than the fastest detector alone. Conclusion: The combination of the fastest detector and best tracker improved the accuracy over online trackers while improving the speed of detectors. Significance: The method proposed here, in combination with wearable cameras, will help clinicians directly measure hand function in a patient's daily life at home, enabling independence after SCI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".