Outdoor Walking Classification Based on Inertial Measurement Unit and Foot Pressure Sensor Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Navigating surfaces during walking can alter gait patterns. This study aims to develop tools for automatic walking condition classification using inertial measurement unit (IMU) and foot pressure sensors. We compared sensor modalities (IMUs on lower-limbs, IMUs on feet, IMUs on the pelvis, pressure insoles, and IMUs on the feet or pelvis combined with pressure insoles) and evaluated whether gait cycle segmentation improves performance compared to a sliding window. (2) Methods: Twenty participants performed flat, stairs up, stairs down, slope up, and slope down walking trials while fitted with IMUs and pressure insoles. Machine learning (ML; Extreme Gradient Boosting) and deep learning (DL; Convolutional Neural Network + Long Short-Term Memory) models were trained to classify these conditions. (3) Results: Overall, a DL model using lower-limb IMUs processed with gait segmentation performed the best (F1=0.89). Models trained with IMUs outperformed those trained on pressure insoles (p<0.01). Combining sensor modalities and gait segmentation improved performance for ML models (p<0.01). The best minimal model was a DL model trained on IMU pelvis + pressure insole data using sliding window segmentation (F1=0.83). (4) Conclusions: IMUs provide the most discriminative features for automatic walking condition classification. Combining sensor modalities may be helpful for some model architectures. DL models perform well without gait segmentation, making them independent of gait event identification algorithms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".