ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Low-Rank and Sparse Recovery of Human Gait Data.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Motion Capture Data Recovery: A Comprehensive Review and Future Outlook.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Deep-Learning-Based Recovery of Missing Optical Marker Trajectories in 3D Motion Capture Systems.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to occlusion or detached markers, information can often be lost while capturing human motion with optical tracking systems. Based on three natural properties of human gait movement, this study presents two different approaches to recover corrupted motion data. These properties are used to define a reconstruction model combining low-rank matrix completion of the measured data with a group-sparsity prior on the marker trajectories mapped in the frequency domain. Unlike most existing approaches, the proposed methodology is fully unsupervised and does not need training data or kinematic information of the user. We evaluated our methods on four different gait datasets with various gap lengths and compared their performance with a state-of-the-art approach using principal component analysis (PCA). Our results showed recovering missing data more precisely, with a reduction of at least 2 mm in mean reconstruction error compared to the literature method. When a small number of marker trajectories is available, our findings showed a reduction of more than 14 mm for the mean reconstruction error compared to the literature approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.