MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120943723 · doi:10.11648/j.ijssn.20210901.11

A Magnetometer Calibration Method Using Single-Axis Motion Trajectory and Unscented Kalman Filter for Body Motion Capture Applications

2021· article· en· W3120943723 on OpenAlexafffund
Farzan Farhangian, Saoussen Bilel, Faramarz Farhangian, René Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sensors and Sensor Networks · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsInertial measurement unitKalman filterCalibrationMagnetometerAttitude and heading reference systemComputer scienceExtended Kalman filterObservabilityComputer visionTrajectoryEllipsoidRigid bodyControl theory (sociology)GyroscopeArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetometer calibration is a pre-processing step in the Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS) which has an essential role in many applications. The main purpose of this article is to derive an innovative and precise calibration approach for a magnetometer set installed on human body. To execute this calibration method, all the error parameters of multiple magnetometers are considered in an Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) model for accurate estimation of calibration parameters. As achieving a precise estimation in Kalman filters-based algorithms needs an accurate and complete observation model, a special single-axis rotation trajectory for Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) is performed to increase the observability rank of the calibration model. To evaluate the proposed method, five body-mounted sensors were experimented in the laboratory at the same time for applying in the body motion capture system. The results showed that all five sensors were well-calibrated without any need to be detached from the body and using any rotational robot arm. The resolution and precision of the proposed calibration method are assessed by the ellipsoid-fitting representation method. Consequently, all the body-mounted magnetometers were calibrated, on average, by about 1% uncertainty. The method can be used in every motion capture and AHRS applications due to its feasibility and simplicity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sensors and Sensor NetworksSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207