MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tai Chi Exercise Posture Detection and Assessment for the Elderly Using BPNN and 2 Kinect Cameras

2023· article· en· W4385831247 on OpenAlexaff
Sarawin Kanchanapaetnukul, Rungarun Aunkaew, Piyanuch Charernmool, Mohamed Daoudi, Kobkiat Saraubon, Porawat Visutsak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersKing Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
KeywordsElderly peopleUsabilityRecreationTest (biology)DementiaRecallPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCLIPSPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interactionGerontologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise and recreation are beneficial to all genders and ages, exercise reduces stress and makes people healthy. Physical limitation among the elderly is the major concern and needed to be taking care for the elderly exercise. Low-impact exercises such as walking, slow jogging in the park, and Tai Chi are recommended for the elderly. Tai Chi is a slow and gentle exercise, which can help the circulatory system and dementia in the elderly; it also helps the elderly to get socialized and make new friends. Unfortunately, in the COVID-19 pandemic, people must stay in the house and avoid social activities including outdoor exercises and recreation. This paper aims to develop Tai Chi exercise posture detection and assessment system for helping the elderly to practice Tai Chi at home by themselves. The system provides Tai Chi video clips for demonstration and the graphics user interface (GUI) for capturing the movement of the elderly while they are exercising Tai Chi. The system will detect and assess the elderly's movement whether it is correct or not by using 2 Kinect cameras. The Kinect is used for joints detection and the series of joints movement will be used to compare with the correct Tai Chi postures stored in the system. The questionnaire, which was developed based on the usability criteria defined by the ISO 9241–11 and the users' experience, was used to evaluate the system. The precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy of our system are 0.94, 0.98, 0.96, and 0.93 respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→