Comparative Analysis of Environment Recognition Systems for Control of Lower-Limb Exoskeletons and Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environment recognition systems can facilitate the predictive control of lower-limb exoskeletons and prostheses by recognizing the oncoming walking environment prior to physical interactions. While many environment recognition systems have been developed using different wearable technology and classification algorithms, their relative operational performances have not been evaluated. Motivated to determine the state-of-the-science and propose future directions for research innovation, we conducted an extensive comparative analysis of the wearable technology, training datasets, and classification algorithms used for vision-based environment recognition. The advantages and drawbacks of different wearable cameras and training datasets were reviewed. Environment recognition systems using pattern recognition, machine learning, and convolutional neural networks for image classification were compared. We evaluated the performances of different deep learning networks using a novel balanced metric called “NetScore”, which considers the image classification accuracy, and computational and memory storage requirements. Based on our analysis, future research in environment recognition systems for lower-limb exoskeletons and prostheses should consider developing 1) efficient deep convolutional neural networks for onboard classification, and 2) large-scale open-source datasets for training and comparing image classification algorithms from different researchers.
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".