Cited by 67Prosthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsMuscle activation and electromyography studiesContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Real-Time On-Board Recognition of Continuous Locomotion Modes for Amputees With Robotic Transtibial Prostheses

Xu, Dongfang, Feng, Yanggang, Mai, Jingeng, Wang, Qining·2018·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Human intent recognition is important to the control of robotic prosthesis. In this paper, we propose a multi-level real-time on-board system to recognize continuous locomotion modes. A cascaded classification strategy is designed for the recognition of six steady locomotion modes and 10 transitions. On-board signals of the robotic prosthesis include two inertial measurement units and one load cell. Three transtibial amputees are recruited in the experiments. The prediction decision time of the real-time on-board cascaded classification system is about 3.3 ms, which is enough short compared with the sliding window increment 10 ms. It is easy to recognize the standing and ambulation in the first-level classification with a 99.86% accuracy by quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) classifier. In the second-level classification, threshold method is adopted to divide one stride into swing and stance phases. In swing phase, five steady modes are recognized with a total accuracy of 96.40%. In stance phase, all these five steady modes are recognized with a total accuracy of 91.21%. The average recognition accuracy of the three subjects is 93.21% by QDA classifier. Besides, for transitions, the proposed system could recognize all transitions rightly. The designed system is feasible and effective to realize real-time on-board recognition of continuous locomotion modes, which is promising for the further control of the prosthesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2018.2870152

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, D., Feng, Y., Mai, J., & Wang, Q.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2018-10
Volume
26
Issue
10
Pages
2015-2025
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2892098085
Cited by
67
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (91648207, 61533001)
  • National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFF0300606)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (L172052)
  • National Program for Support of Top-Notch Young Professionals
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
robotic prostheses, transtibial amputation, onboard signal processing, inertial measurement unit, load cell, cascaded classification, stance and swing phases, prosthetic control, real-time recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Amputees, Artificial Limbs, Biomechanical Phenomena, Gait, Humans, Locomotion, Male, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Robotics, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Tibia, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review