Measuring Gait Velocity and Stride Length with an Ultrawide Bandwidth Local Positioning System and an Inertial Measurement Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One possible modality to profile gait speed and stride length includes using wearable technologies. Wearable technology using global positioning system (GPS) receivers may not be a feasible means to measure gait speed. An alternative may include a local positioning system (LPS). Considering that LPS wearables are not good at determining gait events such as heel strikes, applying sensor fusion with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) may be beneficial. Speed and stride length determined from an ultrawide bandwidth LPS equipped with an IMU were compared to video motion capture (i.e., the "gold standard") as the criterion standard. Ninety participants performed trials at three self-selected walk, run and sprint speeds. After processing location, speed and acceleration data from the measurement systems, speed between the last five meters and stride length in the last stride of the trial were analyzed. Small biases and strong positive intraclass correlations (0.9-1.0) between the LPS and "the gold standard" were found. The significance of the study is that the LPS can be a valid method to determine speed and stride length. Variability of speed and stride length can be reduced when exploring data processing methods that can better extract speed and stride length measurements.
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".