Novel Methods for Personalized Gait Assistance: Three-Dimensional Trajectory Prediction Based on Regression and LSTM Models
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".