ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Multi-Source Motion Inputs and FA-TA-BiLSTM for Lower-Limb Joint Angle Prediction.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Accurate lower-limb joint angle prediction can support motion-state perception and rehabilitation-oriented analysis. This offline feasibility study evaluated an FA-TA-BiLSTM model using surface electromyography (sEMG) features, together with historical hip and knee joint angles and angular velocities. Data were collected from five healthy adult male participants during level walking and sit-to-stand transitions, and the prediction horizon was 100 ms. Support vector regression (SVR), BiLSTM, and FA-TA-BiLSTM were compared under the same combined-input condition and evaluation protocol. The FA-TA-BiLSTM model achieved RMSE, MAE, and R2 values of 2.0684°, 1.5920°, and 0.9726 for hip prediction and 2.9604°, 2.5142°, and 0.9660 for knee prediction, respectively. These values were obtained using a mixed-participant chronological split and should be interpreted as preliminary within-cohort estimates rather than evidence of participant-independent generalization. Under this restricted protocol, FA-TA-BiLSTM produced lower errors than SVR and standard BiLSTM. The participant-level model ranking was consistent across the five participants, but exact pairwise comparisons did not reach significance after Holm adjustment. The current comparison does not isolate the incremental contribution of sEMG or individual attention modules; larger and more diverse cohorts, participant-independent validation, modality and module ablation, and causal online evaluation remain necessary.
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.