MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413556905 · doi:10.1109/lsens.2025.3602011

Estimating Movement Direction From Body Orientation Using Dual Ultra-Wideband Sensors

2025· article· en· W4413556905 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Shahbazi Ojghaz, Sayeh Bayat, Farnaz Sadeghpour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)Orientation (vector space)Dual (grammatical number)Ultra-widebandWidebandComputer scienceAcousticsPhysicsGeometryTelecommunicationsOpticsMathematicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate short-term prediction of human movement is vital for safety-critical and context-aware applications in dynamic environments. While conventional trajectory prediction methods depend on historical motion data, they often fall short in anticipating sudden directional changes. This study investigates whether body orientation, estimated using a dual Ultra-Wideband (UWB) sensor configuration, can serve as a reliable predictor of near-future movement direction. A wearable device with two shoulder-mounted UWB tags was used to collect position and orientation data during controlled walking experiments. Eight participants walked freely within a controlled lab environment while data were recorded. Circular cross-correlation was applied to analyze the temporal relationship between body orientation and subsequent movement direction. Results revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation across all participants (mean correlation = 0.7688, p < 0.001), with an average optimal lead time of 200 ms. The relationship remained robust using a standardized 200 ms lag (mean correlation = 0.7453). These findings demonstrate that UWB-derived body orientation can effectively predict short-term movement direction, supporting the use of UWB sensing not only for localization but also as a foundation for predictive on-body systems that enhance real-time safety and mobility monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors LettersSame topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207