Environment Classification for Robotic Leg Prostheses and Exoskeletons Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic leg prostheses and exoskeletons can provide powered locomotor assistance to older adults and/or persons with physical disabilities. However, the current locomotion mode recognition systems being developed for automated high-level control and decision-making rely on mechanical, inertial, and/or neuromuscular sensors, which inherently have limited prediction horizons (i.e., analogous to walking blindfolded). Inspired by the human vision-locomotor control system, we developed an environment classification system powered by computer vision and deep learning to predict the oncoming walking environments prior to physical interaction, therein allowing for more accurate and robust high-level control decisions. In this study, we first reviewed the development of our "ExoNet" database-the largest and most diverse open-source dataset of wearable camera images of indoor and outdoor real-world walking environments, which were annotated using a hierarchical labeling architecture. We then trained and tested over a dozen state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on the ExoNet database for image classification and automatic feature engineering, including: EfficientNetB0, InceptionV3, MobileNet, MobileNetV2, VGG16, VGG19, Xception, ResNet50, ResNet101, ResNet152, DenseNet121, DenseNet169, and DenseNet201. Finally, we quantitatively compared the benchmarked CNN architectures and their environment classification predictions using an operational metric called "NetScore," which balances the image classification accuracy with the computational and memory storage requirements (i.e., important for onboard real-time inference with mobile computing devices). Our comparative analyses showed that the EfficientNetB0 network achieves the highest test accuracy; VGG16 the fastest inference time; and MobileNetV2 the best NetScore, which can inform the optimal architecture design or selection depending on the desired performance. Overall, this study provides a large-scale benchmark and reference for next-generation environment classification systems for robotic leg prostheses and exoskeletons.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".