The effect of time normalization and biomechanical signal processing techniques of ground reaction force curves on deep-learning model performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time-series data are common in biomechanical studies. These data often undergo pre-processing steps such as time normalization or filtering prior to use in further analyses, including deep-learning classification. In this context, it remains unclear how these preprocessing steps affect deep-learning model performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the effect of time-normalization and filtering on the performance of deep-learning classification models. We also investigated the effect of amplitude scaling. Using a public dataset (Gutenburg Gait Database, a ground reaction force database of level overground walking at self-selected walking speed involving 350 healthy individuals), we trained convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models to predict binary sex (male, female) using three-dimensional ground-reaction forces to which we applied different processing approaches: zero padding, interpolation to 100% of signal, filtering, and scaling (min-max, body mass). The results show that transformations resulted in differences in model performances. Highest performance was obtained using unfiltered data, zero-padding, and min-max amplitude scaling (F1-score of 91 and 87% for CNN and LSTM, respectively). Not filtering data and using min-max scaling generally improve performance for both model architectures. For interpolation, results are not consistent across model architectures. This study suggests that processing steps must be considered in applications where deep-learning classification performance is relevant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".