Classifying Unstable and Stable Walking Patterns Using Electroencephalography Signals and Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing unstable gait patterns from Electroencephalography (EEG) signals is vital to develop real-time brain-computer interface (BCI) systems to prevent falls and associated injuries. This study investigates the feasibility of classification algorithms to detect walking instability utilizing EEG signals. A 64-channel Brain Vision EEG system was used to acquire EEG signals from 13 healthy adults. Participants performed walking trials for four different stable and unstable conditions: (i) normal walking, (ii) normal walking with medial-lateral perturbation (MLP), (iii) normal walking with dual-tasking (Stroop), (iv) normal walking with center of mass visual feedback. Digital biomarkers were extracted using wavelet energy and entropies from the EEG signals. Algorithms like the ChronoNet, SVM, Random Forest, gradient boosting and recurrent neural networks (LSTM) could classify with 67 to 82% accuracy. The classification results show that it is possible to accurately classify different gait patterns (from stable to unstable) using EEG-based digital biomarkers. This study develops various machine-learning-based classification models using EEG datasets with potential applications in detecting unsteady gait neural signals and intervening by preventing falls and injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".