Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31936407›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Automatic Classification of Squat Posture Using Inertial Sensors: Deep Learning Approach.

Jaehyun Lee, Hyosung Joo, Junglyeon Lee, Youngjoon Chee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Real-Time Tracking of Human Neck Postures and Movements.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Wearable Sensors and Systems in the IoT.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jaehyun LeeInterdisciplinary Program of Medical and Biological Engineering, University of Ulsan, 93, Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 44610, Korea.
Hyosung JooInterdisciplinary Program of Medical and Biological Engineering, University of Ulsan, 93, Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 44610, Korea.
Junglyeon LeeDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Ulsan, 93, Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 44610, Korea.
Youngjoon CheeSchool of Electrical Engineering, University of Ulsan, 93, Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 44610, Korea.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2017R1A2B2005321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Without expert coaching, inexperienced exercisers performing core exercises, such as squats, are subject to an increased risk of spinal or knee injuries. Although it is theoretically possible to measure the kinematics of body segments and classify exercise forms with wearable sensors and algorithms, the current implementations are not sufficiently accurate. In this study, the squat posture classification performance of deep learning was compared to that of conventional machine learning. Additionally, the location for the optimal placement of sensors was determined. Accelerometer and gyroscope data were collected from 39 healthy participants using five inertial measurement units (IMUs) attached to the left thigh, right thigh, left calf, right calf, and lumbar region. Each participant performed six repetitions of an acceptable squat and five incorrect forms of squats that are typically observed in inexperienced exercisers. The accuracies of squat posture classification obtained using conventional machine learning and deep learning were compared. Each result was obtained using one IMU or a combination of two or five IMUs. When employing five IMUs, the accuracy of squat posture classification using conventional machine learning was 75.4%, whereas the accuracy using deep learning was 91.7%. When employing two IMUs, the highest accuracy (88.7%) was obtained using deep learning for a combination of IMUs on the right thigh and right calf. The single IMU yielded the best results on the right thigh, with an accuracy of 58.7% for conventional machine learning and 80.9% for deep learning. Overall, the results obtained using deep learning were superior to those obtained using conventional machine learning for both single and multiple IMUs. With regard to the convenience of use in self-fitness, the most feasible strategy was to utilize a single IMU on the right thigh.

Indexed as

deep learningexercise classificationinertial measurement unitself-fitnesssquat

Identifiers

PMID31936407
PMCPMC7014149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.