Evaluation of a finite state machine algorithm to measure stepping with ankle accelerometry: Performance across a range of gait speeds, tasks, and individual walking ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Wearable sensors increasingly used to assess gait in clinic and community settings. • Detection algorithms need high accuracy across range of abilities and conditions. • Finite state machines have advantages over threshold-based step detection methods. • FSM method reports excellent detection accuracy for speed and dual task conditions. • Potential advantages for expanding to free-living are favourable for FSM methods. Wearable sensors, including accelerometers, are a widely accepted tool to assess gait in clinical and free-living environments. Methods to identify phases and subphases of the gait cycle are necessary for comprehensive assessment of pathological gait. The current study evaluated the accuracy of a finite state machine (FSM) algorithm to detect strides by identifying gait cycle subphases from ankle-worn accelerometry. Algorithm performance was challenged across a range of speeds (0.4-2.6 m/s), task conditions (e.g., single- and dual-task walking), and individual characteristics. Specifically, the study included a range of treadmill speeds in young adults and overground walking conditions in older adults with neurological disease. Manually counted and algorithm-derived stride detection from acceleration data were evaluated using error analysis and Bland-Altman plots for visualization. Overall, the algorithm successfully detected strides (>96 % accuracy) across gait speed ranges and tasks, for young and older adults. The accuracy of an FSM algorithm combined with ankle-worn accelerometers, provides an analytical approach with affordable and portable tools that permits comprehensive assessment of gait unbounded by setting and proves to perform well in in walking tasks characterized by variable walking. These algorithm capabilities and advancements are critical for identifying phase dependent gait impairments in clinical and free-living assessment.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".