A pelvic kinematic approach for calculating hip angles for active hip disarticulation prosthesis control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Control system design for a microprocessor-controlled hip-knee-ankle-foot (HKAF) prosthesis is a challenge since hip disarticulation amputees lack the entire leg and, therefore, only have pelvis movement as user-guided input. This research proposes a method for determining hip joint angles from pelvis movement in a control system for the next generation of powered prostheses. METHOD: Three-dimensional pelvic motion and stance time of 10 transfemoral (TF) prosthetic users were used to identify important features and to develop an algorithm to calculate hip angles from pelvis movement based on correlation and linear regression results. The algorithm was then applied to a separate (independent) TF group to validate algorithm performance. RESULTS: The proposed algorithm calculated viable hip angles during walking by utilizing pelvic rotation, pelvic tilt, and stance time. Small angular differences were found between the algorithm results and motion capture data. The greatest difference was for hip maximum extension angle (2.5 ± 2.0°). CONCLUSIONS: Since differences between algorithm output and motion data were within participant standard deviations, the developed algorithm could be used to determine the desired hip angle from pelvis movements. This study will aid the future development of gait control systems for new active HKAF prostheses.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".