MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388544041 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3331687

Contact Part Detection From 3D Human Motion Data Using Manually Labeled Contact Data and Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4388544041 on OpenAlexaff
Changgu Kang, Meejin Kim, Kangsoo Kim, Sukwon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKorea Creative Content AgencyMinistry of Culture, Sports and Tourism
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Feature (linguistics)Motion captureComputer visionAffordanceContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Human–computer interactionVirtual realityPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on the interaction between users and their environment has been conducted in various fields, including human activity recognition (HAR), human-scene interaction (HSI), computer graphics (CG), and virtual reality (VR). Typically, the interaction process commences with a human body part’s movement and involves contact with a target object or the environment. The choice of the body part to make contact depends on the interaction’s purpose and affordance, making contact a fundamental aspect of interaction. However, detecting the specific body parts in contact, especially in the context of 3D motion and complex environments, poses computational challenges. To address this challenge, this study proposes a method for contact detection using motion data. The motion data utilized in this study are limited to actions feasible in an office environment. Since contact states of different body parts are independent, the proposed method comprises two distinct models: a feature model generating common features for each body part and a part model recognizing the contact state of each body part. The feature model employs a bidirectional long-short term memory(Bi-LSTM) structure to capture the sequential nature of motion data, ensuring the incorporation of continuous data characteristics. In contrast, the part model employs separate weights optimized for each body part within the deep neural network. Experimental results demonstrate the proposed method’s high accuracy, recall, and precision, with values of 0.99, 0.97, and 0.95, 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207