ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Biomechanical Signals of Varied Modality and Location Contribute Differently to Recognition of Transient Locomotion.
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.
- Effect of heel height on lower limb biomechanics during stair descent in young women: a laboratory study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The Effect of Sensor Feature Inputs on Joint Angle Prediction across Simple Movements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Continuous Classification of Locomotion in Response to Task Complexity and Anticipatory State.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intent recognition in lower-limb assistive devices typically relies on neuromechanical sensing of an affected limb acquired through embedded device sensors. It remains unknown whether signals from more widespread sources such as the contralateral leg and torso positively influence intent recognition, and how specific locomotor tasks that place high demands on the neuromuscular system, such as changes of direction, contribute to intent recognition. In this study, we evaluated the performances of signals from varying mechanical modalities (accelerographic, gyroscopic, and joint angles) and locations (the trailing leg, leading leg and torso) during straight walking, changes of direction (cuts), and cuts to stair ascent with varying task anticipation. Biomechanical information from the torso demonstrated poor performance across all conditions. Unilateral (the trailing or leading leg) joint angle data provided the highest accuracy. Surprisingly, neither the fusion of unilateral and torso data nor the combination of multiple signal modalities improved recognition. For these fused modality data, similar trends but with diminished accuracy rates were reported during unanticipated conditions. Finally, for datasets that achieved a relatively accurate (≥90%) recognition of unanticipated tasks, these levels of recognition were achieved after the mid-swing of the trailing/transitioning leg, prior to a subsequent heel strike. These findings suggest that mechanical sensing of the legs and torso for the recognition of straight-line and transient locomotion can be implemented in a relatively flexible manner (i.e., signal modality, and from the leading or trailing legs) and, importantly, suggest that more widespread sensing is not always optimal.
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.