4.6 Article

A Comparison of Three Neural Network Approaches for Estimating Joint Angles and Moments from Inertial Measurement Units

期刊

SENSORS
卷 21, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21134535

关键词

machine learning; wearable sensors; joint kinematics; joint kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper compares the performance of three commonly employed ANNs used to predict gait kinetics and kinematics from IMUs. Although all investigated ANNs showed high correlations between ground truth and predicted data, the optimal ANN should be chosen based on the prediction task and intended use-case application.
The application of artificial intelligence techniques to wearable sensor data may facilitate accurate analysis outside of controlled laboratory settings-the holy grail for gait clinicians and sports scientists looking to bridge the lab to field divide. Using these techniques, parameters that are difficult to directly measure in-the-wild, may be predicted using surrogate lower resolution inputs. One example is the prediction of joint kinematics and kinetics based on inputs from inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors. Despite increased research, there is a paucity of information examining the most suitable artificial neural network (ANN) for predicting gait kinematics and kinetics from IMUs. This paper compares the performance of three commonly employed ANNs used to predict gait kinematics and kinetics: multilayer perceptron (MLP); long short-term memory (LSTM); and convolutional neural networks (CNN). Overall high correlations between ground truth and predicted kinematic and kinetic data were found across all investigated ANNs. However, the optimal ANN should be based on the prediction task and the intended use-case application. For the prediction of joint angles, CNNs appear favourable, however these ANNs do not show an advantage over an MLP network for the prediction of joint moments. If real-time joint angle and joint moment prediction is desirable an LSTM network should be utilised.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据