MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320015769 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2023.3240879

Accurate Real-Time Joint Torque Estimation for Dynamic Prediction of Human Locomotion

2023· article· en· W4320015769 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah Dinovitzer, Mohammad Shushtari, Arash Arami

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsTorqueExoskeletonArtificial neural networkEstimatorComputer scienceInverse dynamicsSimulationJoint (building)Control theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inverse dynamics is a common tool for determining human joint torques during walking. The traditional approaches rely on ground reaction force and kinematics measurements prior to analysis. A novel real-time hybrid method is proposed in this work by integrating a neural network and dynamic model that only requires kinematic data. An end-to-end neural network for direct joint torque estimation is also developed based on kinematic data. The neural networks are trained on a variety of walking conditions, including starting and stopping, sudden speed changes, and asymmetrical walking. The hybrid model is first tested in a detailed dynamic gait simulation (OpenSim) which results in root mean square errors less than 5 N.m and a correlation coefficient of greater than 0.95 for all the joints. Experiments demonstrate that the end-to-end model on average outperforms the hybrid model across the whole test when compared to the gold standard approach which requires both kinetic and kinematic information. The two torque estimators are also tested on one participant wearing a lower limb exoskeleton. In this case, the hybrid model (R 0.84) has significantly better performance than the end-to-end neural network (R 0.59). This indicates that the hybrid model is better applicable to scenarios which differ from the training data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207