2022
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-01099-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic ML-based vestibular gait classification: examining the effects of IMU placement and gait task selection

Abstract: Background Vestibular deficits can impair an individual’s ability to maintain postural and/or gaze stability. Characterizing gait abnormalities among individuals affected by vestibular deficits could help identify patients at high risk of falling and inform rehabilitation programs. Commonly used gait assessment tools rely on simple measures such as timing and visual observations of path deviations by clinicians. These simple measures may not capture subtle changes in gait kinematics. Therefore,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 73 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the detection of activities in patient populations is complicated by larger variability in movement patterns across the population. For example, automatic detection of vestibular gait is possible with good accuracy if data is restricted to a specific task [ 51 ]. For upper extremity tasks, several studies have found that wrist-worn IMUs and Random Forest Classifiers are superior to other processing methods for detecting functional arm use in stroke [ 52 , 53 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the detection of activities in patient populations is complicated by larger variability in movement patterns across the population. For example, automatic detection of vestibular gait is possible with good accuracy if data is restricted to a specific task [ 51 ]. For upper extremity tasks, several studies have found that wrist-worn IMUs and Random Forest Classifiers are superior to other processing methods for detecting functional arm use in stroke [ 52 , 53 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%