MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399562992 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3413576

LLMT: A Transformer-Based Multi-Modal Lower Limb Human Motion Prediction Model for Assistive Robotics Applications

2024· article· en· W4399562992 on OpenAlexafffund
Somayeh Hosseini, Nader Joojili, Mojtaba Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRoboticsModalArtificial intelligenceTransformerHuman motionMotion (physics)Computer visionRobotEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognition of human intended motion is key to developing intelligent human-robot interaction (HRI) controllers in assistive devices. This study aims to develop a human motion recognition architecture tailored explicitly for real-time assistive robotics, such as exoskeletons and robot-assisted walking systems. We introduced a multi-modal lower limb modified transformer (LLMT), an architecture that bridges the gap in existing HRI technologies by defining a comprehensive set of relevant motions that generalize well for unseen subjects, ensuring adaptability and precision in diverse interaction scenarios. LLMT uses sparse multi-channel surface electromyography (sEMG) and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) signals to classify different motion patterns. The accuracy of the proposed method was compared with that of the classical machine learning (cML) models and a convolutional neural network (CNN). This comparison uses experimental data from seven human participants in two motion scenarios and a benchmark dataset. The validation methods included inter-subject, leave-one-subject-out, and intra-subject approaches. The proposed method demonstrated excellent accuracy, achieving$99.42 \pm 0.25\%$,$99.07 \pm 0.32\%$, and$97.08 \pm 1.16\%$in inter-subject, leave-one-subject-out, and intra-subject validation methods on the collected and benchmark datasets, respectively. Additionally, it exhibited an average online prediction time of 84.09 ms within the recording loop.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207