Mannini Andrea, Sabatini Angelo Maria
The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Med Eng Phys. 2014 Oct;36(10):1312-21. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.07.022. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
In this paper we implemented machine learning (ML) and strap-down integration (SDI) methods and analyzed them for their capability of estimating stride-by-stride walking speed. Walking speed was computed by dividing estimated stride length by stride time using data from a foot mounted inertial measurement unit. In SDI methods stride-by-stride walking speed estimation was driven by detecting gait events using a hidden Markov model (HMM) based method (HMM-based SDI); alternatively, a threshold-based gait event detector was investigated (threshold-based SDI). In the ML method a linear regression model was developed for stride length estimation. Whereas the gait event detectors were a priori fixed without training, the regression model was validated with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. A subject-specific regression model calibration was also implemented to personalize the ML method. Healthy adults performed over-ground walking trials at natural, slower-than-natural and faster-than-natural speeds. The ML method achieved a root mean square estimation error of 2.0% and 4.2%, with and without personalization, against 2.0% and 3.1% by HMM-based SDI and threshold-based SDI. In spite that the results achieved by the two approaches were similar, the ML method, as compared with SDI methods, presented lower intra-subject variability and higher inter-subject variability, which was reduced by personalization.
在本文中,我们实现了机器学习(ML)和捷联积分(SDI)方法,并分析了它们逐步估计步行速度的能力。使用来自足部惯性测量单元的数据,通过将估计的步长除以步幅时间来计算步行速度。在SDI方法中,逐步步行速度估计是通过使用基于隐马尔可夫模型(HMM)的方法(基于HMM的SDI)检测步态事件来驱动的;另外,还研究了基于阈值的步态事件检测器(基于阈值的SDI)。在ML方法中,开发了用于步长估计的线性回归模型。虽然步态事件检测器是预先固定的,无需训练,但回归模型通过留一法交叉验证进行了验证。还实施了特定于受试者的回归模型校准,以使ML方法个性化。健康成年人以自然、低于自然和高于自然的速度进行了地面行走试验。ML方法在有和没有个性化的情况下,均方根估计误差分别为2.0%和4.2%,而基于HMM的SDI和基于阈值的SDI分别为2.0%和3.1%。尽管两种方法取得的结果相似,但与SDI方法相比,ML方法表现出较低的受试者内变异性和较高的受试者间变异性,而个性化可降低这种变异性。