Identifying Hand Use and Hand Roles After Stroke Using Egocentric Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Upper limb (UL) impairment impacts quality of life, but is common after stroke. UL function evaluated in the clinic may not reflect use in activities of daily living (ADLs) after stroke, and current approaches for assessment at home rely on self-report and lack details about hand function. Wrist-worn accelerometers have been applied to capture UL use, but also fail to reveal details of hand function. In response, a wearable system is proposed consisting of egocentric cameras combined with computer vision approaches, in order to identify hand use (hand-object interactions) and the role of the more-affected hand (as stabilizer or manipulator) in unconstrained environments. METHODS: Nine stroke survivors recorded their performance of ADLs in a home simulation laboratory using an egocentric camera. Motion, hand shape, colour, and hand size change features were generated and fed into random forest classifiers to detect hand use and classify hand roles. Leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOSOCV) and leave-one-task-out cross-validation (LOTOCV) were used to evaluate the robustness of the algorithms. RESULTS: LOSOCV and LOTOCV F1-scores for more-affected hand use were 0.64 ± 0.24 and 0.76 ± 0.23, respectively. For less-affected hands, LOSOCV and LOTOCV F1-scores were 0.72 ± 0.20 and 0.82 ± 0.22. F1-scores for hand role classification were 0.70 ± 0.19 and 0.68 ± 0.23 in the more-affected hand for LOSOCV and LOTOCV, respectively, and 0.59 ± 0.23 and 0.65 ± 0.28 in the less-affected hand. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the feasibility of predicting hand use and the hand roles of stroke survivors from egocentric videos.
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".