MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385849297 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07184

Auditory cueing strategy for stride length and cadence modification: a feasibility study with healthy adults

2023· preprint· en· W4385849297 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tina L. Y. Wu, Anna Murphy, Chao Chen, Dana Kulić

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsCadenceSTRIDEGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAuditory feedbackComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with Parkinson's Disease experience gait impairments that significantly impact their quality of life. Visual, auditory, and tactile cues can alleviate gait impairments, but they can become less effective due to the progressive nature of the disease and changes in people's motor capability. In this study, we develop a human-in-the-loop (HIL) framework that monitors two key gait parameters, stride length and cadence, and continuously learns a person-specific model of how the parameters change in response to the feedback. The model is then used in an optimization algorithm to improve the gait parameters. This feasibility study examines whether auditory cues can be used to influence stride length in people without gait impairments. The results demonstrate the benefits of the HIL framework in maintaining people's stride length in the presence of a secondary task.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→