Novel Methods for Personalized Gait Assistance: Three-Dimensional Trajectory Prediction Based on Regression and LSTM Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancing human-robot interaction has been a primary focus in robotic gait assistance, with a thorough understanding of human motion being crucial for personalizing gait assistance. Traditional gait trajectory references from Clinical Gait Analysis (CGA) face limitations due to their inability to account for individual variability. Recent advancements in gait pattern generators, integrating regression models and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) techniques, have aimed at providing more personalized and dynamically adaptable solutions. This article introduces a novel approach that expands regression and ANN applications beyond mere angular estimations to include three-dimensional spatial predictions. Unlike previous methods, our approach provides comprehensive spatial trajectories for hip, knee and ankle tailored to individual kinematics, significantly enhancing end-effector rehabilitation robotic devices. Our models achieve state-of-the-art accuracy: overall RMSE of 13.40 mm and a correlation coefficient of 0.92 for the regression model, and RMSE of 12.57 mm and a correlation of 0.99 for the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model. These advancements underscore the potential of these models to offer more personalized gait trajectory assistance, improving human-robot interactions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it