ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Identifying underlying individuality across running, walking, and handwriting patterns with conditional cycle-consistent generative adversarial networks.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute effects of motor learning models on technical efficiency in strength-coordination exercises: a comparative analysis of Olympic snatch biomechanics in beginners.Biology of sport · 2025Article
- Unveiling the acute neurophysiological responses to strength training: An exploratory study on novices performing weightlifting bouts with different motor learning models.Biology of sport · 2024Article
- Unveiling individuality in the early phase of motor learning: a machine learning approach for analysing weightlifting technique in novices.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Resonance Effects in Variable Practice for Handball, Basketball, and Volleyball Skills: A Study on Contextual Interference and Differential Learning.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the analysis of movement patterns has increasingly focused on the individuality of movements. After long speculations about weak individuality, strong individuality is now accepted, and the first situation-dependent fine structures within it are already identified. Methodologically, however, only signals of the same movements have been compared so far. The goal of this work is to detect cross-movement commonalities of individual walking, running, and handwriting patterns using data augmentation. A total of 17 healthy adults (35.8 ± 11.1 years, eight women and nine men) each performed 627.9 ± 129.0 walking strides, 962.9 ± 182.0 running strides, and 59.25 ± 1.8 handwritings. Using the conditional cycle-consistent generative adversarial network (CycleGAN), conditioned on the participant's class, a pairwise transformation between the vertical ground reaction force during walking and running and the vertical pen pressure during handwriting was learned in the first step. In the second step, the original data of the respective movements were used to artificially generate the other movement data. In the third step, whether the artificially generated data could be correctly assigned to a person via classification using a support vector machine trained with original data of the movement was tested. The classification F1-score ranged from 46.8% for handwriting data generated from walking data to 98.9% for walking data generated from running data. Thus, cross-movement individual patterns could be identified. Therefore, the methodology presented in this study may help to enable cross-movement analysis and the artificial generation of larger amounts of data.
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.