Inertial Motion Capture-Based Whole-Body Inverse Dynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial Motion Capture (IMC) systems enable in situ studies of human motion free of the severe constraints imposed by Optical Motion Capture systems. Inverse dynamics can use those motions to estimate forces and moments developing within muscles and joints. We developed an inverse dynamic whole-body model that eliminates the usage of force plates (FPs) and uses motion patterns captured by an IMC system to predict the net forces and moments in 14 major joints. We validated the model by comparing its estimates of Ground Reaction Forces (GRFs) to the ground truth obtained from FPs and comparing predictions of the static model's net joint moments to those predicted by 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (3DSSPP). The relative root-mean-square error (rRMSE) in the predicted GRF was 6% and the intraclass correlation of the peak values was 0.95, where both values were averaged over the subject population. The rRMSE of the differences between our model's and 3DSSPP predictions of net L5/S1 and right and left shoulder joints moments were 9.5%, 3.3%, and 5.2%, respectively. We also compared the static and dynamic versions of the model and found that failing to account for body motions can underestimate net joint moments by 90% to 560% of the static estimates.
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.
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 it