Inertial Sensor Location for Ground Reaction Force and Gait Event Detection Using Reservoir Computing in Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have shown promising outcomes for estimating gait event detection (GED) and ground reaction force (GRF). This study aims to determine the best sensor location for GED and GRF prediction in gait using data from IMUs for healthy and medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA) individuals. In this study, 27 healthy and 18 MKOA individuals participated. Participants walked at different speeds on an instrumented treadmill. Five synchronized IMUs (Physilog®, 200 Hz) were placed on the lower limb (top of the shoe, heel, above medial malleolus, middle and front of tibia, and on medial of shank close to knee joint). To predict GRF and GED, an artificial neural network known as reservoir computing was trained using combinations of acceleration signals retrieved from each IMU. For GRF prediction, the best sensor location was top of the shoe for 72.2% and 41.7% of individuals in the healthy and MKOA populations, respectively, based on the minimum value of the mean absolute error (MAE). For GED, the minimum MAE value for both groups was for middle and front of tibia, then top of the shoe. This study demonstrates that top of the shoe is the best sensor location for GED and GRF prediction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".