Personalization of Wearable Sensor-Based Joint Kinematic Estimation Using Computer Vision for Hip Exoskeleton Applications

Adrian Krieger; Bogdan Ivanyuk-Skulskyi; Changseob Song; Inseung Kang; Kaitao Luo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Personalization of Wearable Sensor-Based Joint Kinematic Estimation Using Computer Vision for Hip Exoskeleton Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Computer-vision pose estimation can serve as ground truth for personalizing wearable gait models to irregular patterns with just one or two gait cycles.

desk verdict A practical proof-of-concept for using off-the-shelf pose estimation to personalize IMU-based kinematic models, with evaluation limits that the discussion itself mostly owns. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15366 v1 pith:Y5CN7MJ7 submitted 2024-11-22 cs.RO cs.CV

Changseob Song , Bogdan Ivanyuk-Skulskyi , Adrian Krieger , Kaitao Luo , Inseung Kang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.CV

keywords jointkinematicestimationhumanposewearablesensorstemporalconvolutionalnetworktransferlearningstiffkneegaithipexoskeletoncomputervision

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a smartphone-style camera, not a professional motion-capture lab, can supply the training labels needed to adapt a wearable-sensor deep learning model to a new, irregular gait pattern. Using stiff-knee gait as the target, the authors train a temporal convolutional network on IMU data from able-bodied walking, then fine-tune it on a very small dataset labeled by a computer-vision pose estimation pipeline. The adapted model reduces root mean square error by 9.7% relative to the able-bodied-only model and by 19.9% relative to a model trained only on the small stiff-knee dataset. If this holds, wearable robots and remote clinics could personalize joint-angle estimators for individual patients without expensive or labor-intensive motion capture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is transfer learning on a temporal convolutional network (TCN), a deep network with dilated convolutions that maps a window of pelvis and thigh IMU signals to four joint angles. The new ingredient is the label source: a monocular computer-vision pipeline that detects the person, estimates 2D keypoints, lifts them to 3D, and computes hip and knee angles from the resulting skeleton. These vision labels, taken from the best-performing single camera view, are used to fine-tune the pretrained able-bodied model on a stiff-knee dataset that amounts to only about 6% of the full data, or one to two gait cycles per speed condition.

What would settle it

Train the identical transfer-learning protocol on the same one-to-two gait cycles but with labels from a high-accuracy markerless motion-capture reference instead of the vision pipeline. If the mocap-labeled model outperforms the vision-labeled model, the vision label quality is the binding constraint; if the errors are indistinguishable, vision labels are sufficient. A second check is to repeat the adaptation with multi-view triangulated vision labels and observe whether the left-leg error drops, which would confirm occlusion bias in the single-view labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that vision-extracted joint angles are a viable teaching signal for a wearable IMU-based estimator facing an out-of-distribution gait pattern. A temporal convolutional network pretrained on able-bodied walking and fine-tuned on roughly one to two gait cycles of vision-labeled stiff-knee data estimates hip and knee angles with an average RMSE of 7.4 degrees across four joints, which is the lowest error among the three compared models. The authors interpret this as evidence that the vision pipeline captures the shape of the new gait pattern well enough to transfer it into the wearable model, even though the vision labels themselves carry about 9.6 degrees of RMSE relative to a markerless motion-capture reference.

Load-bearing premise

The framework stands on the assumption that the computer-vision pipeline's joint-angle labels are accurate and unbiased enough to teach the wearable model a new gait pattern; if the vision noise is systematic, the adapted estimator will inherit those errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A user's personal joint-angle estimator could be produced in the field with one camera and a few strides of walking, then run on wearable hardware in real time.
The same framework should extend to other irregular gait patterns, such as asymmetric or pathological gaits, as long as the new pattern is visible to the camera and the IMU placement captures the movement.
Because the adapted model runs in less than 20 ms per inference cycle, it is fast enough to feed a hip exoskeleton controller during walking.
Using additional camera views or a triangulated label source would likely reduce the left-side errors that the paper attributes to occlusion.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The authors leave implicit that the method's ceiling is set by the vision labels: with the adapted knee error at 10.1 degrees sitting near the vision pipeline's measured noise floor of 9.6 degrees, the wearable model may be learning the vision system's systematic errors rather than true joint kinematics.
An extension not pursued here is to test label-bias sensitivity directly by training the same transfer-learning protocol on high-accuracy motion-capture labels for the identical small dataset; comparable errors would confirm vision as a sufficient substitute, while a gap would quantify the cost of label noise.
The single-camera dependency implies a deployment constraint: clinical populations whose assistive devices occlude or alter keypoint visibility, such as walker users, would need multi-view or occlusion-robust pose estimation before the personalization benefit transfers.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. The core idea is simple and useful: use a monocular HPE pipeline (ViTPose plus VideoPose3D) to generate joint-angle labels, then fine-tune a TCN that normally runs on thigh/pelvis IMUs with 1-2 gait cycles of that new data. The adaptation improves knee RMSE against independent Theia3D ground truth by about 9.7% over an able-bodied model and 19.9% over a small stiff-knee model. That is a real result, not a simulation. The engineering is solid: real-time on a Raspberry Pi, ONNX export, reasonable hyperparameter choices.

What is genuinely new is the combination of an open-source, real-time HPE label source with transfer learning for pathological gait personalization. I don't know of another paper doing exactly this. The authors also deserve credit for evaluating against an independent markerless system and for openly discussing occlusion-induced left-side errors and the small dataset.

The soft spots are real but mostly in the evaluation, not the idea. Three able-bodied subjects with a brace-simulated stiff knee is a thin base for the abstract's 'novel users in clinical populations.' Adaptation and testing on the same subjects means we don't know how the fine-tuning transfers across people. The 6% SK-to-AB ratio is selected from the test-error curve (Fig. 5c), which is peeking at the test set. And there is no baseline where they fine-tune with Theia3D labels instead of vision labels, so we can't separate the value of transfer learning from the cost of label noise.

On the stress-test concern: the adapted knee RMSE (10.1 deg) is close to the reported vision-label RMSE (9.6 deg) for able-bodied gait, and Fig. 7 shows the model inherits left-side occlusion errors. That is evidence that the vision labels are biased, and the paper does not report vision-label accuracy on the stiff-knee data itself. So the ceiling of the approach is indeed set by label quality. But I don't think this kills the paper. The improvement over both baselines shows the labels carry signal; if they were pure noise, fine-tuning would not help. The authors need to report vision-label error on the target gait and ideally compare against a Theia3D-label adaptation to bound the bias.

Who is this for? Researchers building practical IMU-based estimators for exoskeletons or remote rehabilitation who want a low-cost way to personalize to new gait patterns. As a proof-of-concept, it deserves a serious referee. The evaluation is thin but the idea is sound and the limitations are mostly fixable. I'd send it out with a request for a held-out user study, a pre-specified fine-tuning ratio, and a Theia3D-label baseline.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adaptation framework in which a temporal convolutional network (TCN) for IMU-based joint angle estimation is fine-tuned using joint angles extracted from monocular video via ViTPose/VideoPose3D. With only about 6% of a new gait dataset (stiff-knee gait simulated by a knee brace), the adapted model reduces RMSE by 9.7% relative to a model trained on able-bodied data only and by 19.9% relative to a model trained on the small stiff-knee dataset alone. The authors validate the approach in real time on a treadmill with speed changes and report that the adapted model tracks the new gait pattern better than the two baselines.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the framework would substantially lower the barrier for personalizing wearable-sensor kinematics estimators, replacing marker-based motion capture with an open-source vision pipeline. The work is a useful proof-of-concept: the hardware-in-the-loop real-time validation, the use of open-source HPE components, and the explicit transfer-learning comparison are strengths, and the 1-2 gait cycle fine-tuning result is practically appealing. However, the evaluation is preliminary in scale (three subjects), the label-quality assumption is not yet convincingly supported, and the reported improvements are modest relative to the vision-label noise floor.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Table I and Fig. 7] The adapted AB+SK model's knee RMSE (10.1 deg, Section III) is essentially at the level of the vision-label RMSE (9.60 deg for the right-side camera, Table I), and Fig. 7 shows the model failing to track left-side joint peaks, which Section IV attributes to occlusion-induced errors in the vision labels. This is direct evidence that the model may be learning the vision pipeline's systematic errors rather than recovering true kinematics. The claim that HPE can serve as a ground-truth source therefore requires a demonstration that the label errors are not systematically transferred; please add a control condition that adapts using Theia3D labels, and report signed error or bias of the vision labels per joint and per gait phase.
[Section II-D, Fig. 5c] The 6% SK-to-AB ratio is selected from the test-error curve (Fig. 5c), and the reported 9.7% and 19.9% improvements are evaluated on the same test data used to make that selection. This selection-on-test-set procedure inflates the reported gains. Please choose the ratio on a held-out validation set or pre-specify it, and report the RMSE for the chosen ratio with subject-level confidence intervals.
[Section II-D and Section III] The evaluation uses only three subjects, all able-bodied adults with a knee brace, and no statistical significance tests are reported for the RMSE differences. Moreover, each subject's model is fine-tuned and tested on that subject's own data, so the abstract's claim about estimating kinematics 'across novel users' is not demonstrated; a leave-one-subject-out evaluation would be needed to support generalization claims to unseen persons.

minor comments (5)

[Table I] Table I does not state whether the RMSE values are averaged across all four joints or per joint; since Section III reports hip and knee errors separately, please report per-joint vision-label errors to clarify the label noise floor for the knee.
[Section II-A] The phrase 'potable computer' should be corrected to 'portable computer'.
[Section IV] The sentence containing 'examine the the estimation accuracy' has a duplicated article and should be edited.
[Abstract and Section II-B] The experiments use a machine vision camera (BFS-U3-23S3C-C), not a smartphone camera, although the abstract and introduction emphasize smartphone deployability; please either add a smartphone-based validation or adjust the wording to 'monocular camera' to avoid overclaiming.
[Fig. 5c] Fig. 5c would benefit from error bars at all plotted ratios and a legend indicating that the curves are means across the three subjects; currently only the converged point is described in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional or self-citation circularity; the vision labels are training inputs and the evaluation is against independent Theia3D ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) collect synchronized IMU data and video; (2) extract joint angles from video using ViTPose/VideoPose3D; (3) train a TCN on IMU data with those vision-derived angles as labels; (4) fine-tune on stiff-knee vision labels; (5) evaluate the resulting model against independent Theia3D markerless motion capture labels. The evaluation target is never the vision-label source used for training, so the central claim is not self-definitional. The adapted model's knee RMSE (10.1 deg) being close to the best vision-label RMSE (9.60 deg, Table I) is a limitation about label noise and bias, not a circular reduction: nothing in the loss or architecture forces the test error to equal the label error. The paper itself acknowledges occlusion-induced left-side errors in Section IV, which is a quality concern for the proposed ground truth, not a circularity. The only mild concern is that the SK-to-AB dataset ratio (6%) was selected by analyzing test error on the SK test set before the separate treadmill validation; this is a test-set selection effect that should be scored under soundness and reproducibility risk rather than circularity. Self-citations to prior TCN and exoskeleton work ([28], [30]) are background methodology and are not load-bearing for the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality of vision-derived joint-angle labels, the accuracy of Theia3D ground truth, and the representativeness of brace-simulated stiff knee gait. The main free parameter is the SK-to-AB fine-tuning ratio, which was selected from the test-error curve; camera view and smoothing parameters are secondary tunings. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

SK-to-AB dataset ratio = 6%
Chosen by sweeping the ratio and reading the test-error curve (Fig. 5c); the reported results use the ratio that the authors judged to converge, so the improvement is partially selected on the test set.
Camera view = Right side
Selected as the view with lowest RMSE in Table I; this selection is based on validation performance and affects all subsequent results.
Savitzky-Golay filter window and polynomial order = window=50, polyorder=4
Chosen by hand to smooth vision-pipeline jitter; not tied to the target result but affects label quality.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Theia3D markerless motion capture provides accurate ground-truth joint angles
All evaluation metrics are computed against Theia3D; if it is inaccurate, the reported RMSE values are unreliable.
ad hoc to paper The knee brace produces a gait pattern representative of clinical stiff-knee gait
Three able-bodied subjects wore a brace; no clinical population was tested despite the abstract's claim.
domain assumption ViTPose plus VideoPose3D provide 3D keypoints accurate enough for joint-angle labels
The authors' own Table I shows about 9.6 degrees RMSE versus Theia3D for the right-side view, so this assumption is partially validated but weak.
domain assumption The 10% held-out portion of each subject's dataset is representative of real-time treadmill trials
The ratio sweep and model selection use this test set; the separate 185-second sessions are used only for final validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Personalization of Wearable Sensor-Based Joint Kinematic Estimation Using Computer Vision for Hip Exoskeleton Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5CN7MJ7

@misc{pith2026241115366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Personalization of Wearable Sensor-Based Joint Kinematic Estimation Using Computer Vision for Hip Exoskeleton Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5CN7MJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15366}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate lower-limb joint kinematic estimation is critical for applications such as patient monitoring, rehabilitation, and exoskeleton control. While previous studies have employed wearable sensor-based deep learning (DL) models for estimating joint kinematics, these methods often require extensive new datasets to adapt to unseen gait patterns. Meanwhile, researchers in computer vision have advanced human pose estimation models, which are easy to deploy and capable of real-time inference. However, such models are infeasible in scenarios where cameras cannot be used. To address these limitations, we propose a computer vision-based DL adaptation framework for real-time joint kinematic estimation. This framework requires only a small dataset (i.e., 1-2 gait cycles) and does not depend on professional motion capture setups. Using transfer learning, we adapted our temporal convolutional network (TCN) to stiff knee gait data, allowing the model to further reduce root mean square error by 9.7% and 19.9% compared to a TCN trained on only able-bodied and stiff knee datasets, respectively. Our framework demonstrates a potential for smartphone camera-trained DL models to estimate real-time joint kinematics across novel users in clinical populations with applications in wearable robots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15366 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Pose estimation pipeline using a human vision model. (a) Overall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Motion capture setup for measuring ground-truth joint angles and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Structure of the Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) for training the kinematic estimation model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Experimental setup for evaluating stiff-knee (SK) behavior and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Results of the Validation Experiments on Real-Time Kinematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention,

P. B. Shull, W. Jirattigalachote, M. A. Hunt, M. R. Cutkosky, and S. L. Delp, “Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention,” Gait & Posture , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 11–19, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

The use of wearable devices for walking and running gait analysis outside of the lab: A systematic review,

L. C. Benson, C. A. Clermont, E. Bo ˇsnjak, and R. Ferber, “The use of wearable devices for walking and running gait analysis outside of the lab: A systematic review,” Gait & Posture , vol. 63, pp. 124–138, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed,

R. Spain et al. , “Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed,” Gait & Posture , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 573–578, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

Trunk sway measurements during stance and gait tasks in parkinson’s disease,

A. Adkin, B. Bloem, and J. Allum, “Trunk sway measurements during stance and gait tasks in parkinson’s disease,” Gait & Posture, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 240–249, 2005

work page 2005
[5]

It pays to have a spring in your step,

G. S. Sawicki, C. L. Lewis, and D. P. Ferris, “It pays to have a spring in your step,” Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. , vol. 37, pp. 130–138, July 2009

work page 2009
[6]

The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy,

G. S. Sawicki, O. N. Beck, I. Kang, and A. J. Young, “The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy,” J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., vol. 17, p. 25, Feb. 2020

work page 2020
[7]

A deep learning strategy for emg-based joint position prediction in hip ex- oskeleton assistive robots,

A. Foroutannia, M.-R. Akbarzadeh-T, and A. Akbarzadeh, “A deep learning strategy for emg-based joint position prediction in hip ex- oskeleton assistive robots,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 75, p. 103557, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit,

J. Kim et al. , “Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit,” Science, vol. 365, no. 6454, pp. 668–672, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 36 references

[9]

Estimation of kinematics from inertial measurement units using a combined deep learning and optimization framework,

E. Rapp, S. Shin, W. Thomsen, R. Ferber, and E. Halilaj, “Estimation of kinematics from inertial measurement units using a combined deep learning and optimization framework,” Journal of Biomechanics , vol. 116, p. 110229, 2021

2021
[10]

Lower body kinematics estimation from wearable sensors for walking and running: A deep learning approach,

V . Hernandez, D. Dadkhah, V . Babakeshizadeh, and D. Kuli´c, “Lower body kinematics estimation from wearable sensors for walking and running: A deep learning approach,” Gait & Posture, vol. 83, pp. 185– 193, 2021

2021
[11]

Opencap: Human movement dynamics from smartphone videos,

S. D. Uhlrich et al. , “Opencap: Human movement dynamics from smartphone videos,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 19, pp. 1–26, 10 2023

2023
[12]

Inter- session repeatability of markerless motion capture gait kinematics,

R. M. Kanko, E. Laende, W. S. Selbie, and K. J. Deluzio, “Inter- session repeatability of markerless motion capture gait kinematics,” Journal of Biomechanics , vol. 121, p. 110422, 2021

2021
[13]

Deep learning-based human pose estimation: A survey,

C. Zheng et al. , “Deep learning-based human pose estimation: A survey,” ACM Comput. Surv. , vol. 56, Aug. 2023

2023
[14]

Deep 3d human pose estimation: A review,

J. Wang et al., “Deep 3d human pose estimation: A review,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding , vol. 210, p. 103225, 2021

2021
[15]

Markerless motion capture and biomechanical analysis pipeline,

R. J. Cotton et al. , “Markerless motion capture and biomechanical analysis pipeline,” 2023

2023
[16]

Fusing uncalibrated imus and handheld smartphone video to reconstruct knee kinematics,

J. Peiffer, K. Shah, S. Anarwala, K. Abdou, and R. J. Cotton, “Fusing uncalibrated imus and handheld smartphone video to reconstruct knee kinematics,” in 2024 10th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) , pp. 1275– 1282, 2024

2024
[17]

Markerless motion tracking with noisy video and imu data,

S. Shin, Z. Li, and E. Halilaj, “Markerless motion tracking with noisy video and imu data,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 3082–3092, 2023

2023
[18]

Mobilehumanpose: Toward real-time 3d human pose estimation in mobile devices,

S. Choi, S. Choi, and C. Kim, “Mobilehumanpose: Toward real-time 3d human pose estimation in mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pp. 2328–2338, June 2021

2021
[19]

Vnect: real-time 3d human pose estimation with a single rgb camera,

D. Mehta et al. , “Vnect: real-time 3d human pose estimation with a single rgb camera,” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 36, July 2017

2017
[20]

Real-time gait phase estimation for robotic hip exoskeleton control during multimodal locomotion,

I. Kang et al. , “Real-time gait phase estimation for robotic hip exoskeleton control during multimodal locomotion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3491–3497, 2021

2021
[21]

Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and bench- mark

M. Contributors, “Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and bench- mark.” https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmpose, 2020

2020
[22]

Vitpose: Simple vision transformer baselines for human pose estimation,

Y . Xu, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and D. Tao, “Vitpose: Simple vision transformer baselines for human pose estimation,” 2022

2022
[23]

Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

T.-Y . Lin et al. , “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” 2015

2015
[24]

Ultralytics yolov8,

Ultralytics, “Ultralytics yolov8,” 2023

2023
[25]

3d human pose estimation in video with temporal convolutions and semi-supervised training,

D. Pavllo, C. Feichtenhofer, D. Grangier, and M. Auli, “3d human pose estimation in video with temporal convolutions and semi-supervised training,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 7745–7754, 2019

2019
[26]

Long short-term memory,

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

1997
[27]

Learning long-term dependen- cies with gradient descent is difficult,

Y . Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi, “Learning long-term dependen- cies with gradient descent is difficult,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157–166, 1994

1994
[28]

Subject-independent, biological hip moment estimation dur- ing multimodal overground ambulation using deep learning,

D. D. Molinaro, I. Kang, J. Camargo, M. C. Gombolay, and A. J. Young, “Subject-independent, biological hip moment estimation dur- ing multimodal overground ambulation using deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 219– 229, 2022

2022
[29]

An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,

S. Bai, J. Kolter, and V . Koltun, “An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling,” 03 2018

2018
[30]

Estimating human joint moments unifies exoskeleton control, reducing user effort,

D. D. Molinaro, I. Kang, and A. J. Young, “Estimating human joint moments unifies exoskeleton control, reducing user effort,” Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 88, p. eadi8852, 2024

2024
[31]

Leveraging deep learning and wearables for automatically identifying gait event: Effects of age and location of sensors on the assessment of gait events,

Y . K. Kim et al. , “Leveraging deep learning and wearables for automatically identifying gait event: Effects of age and location of sensors on the assessment of gait events,” IEEE Sensors Journal , pp. 1–1, 2024

2024
[32]

Transferring gait predictors across emg acquisition systems with domain adapta- tion,

A. Guez, B. Hodossy, D. Farina, and R. Vaidyanathan, “Transferring gait predictors across emg acquisition systems with domain adapta- tion,” in 2023 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 1–6, 2023

2023
[33]

A deep learning framework for end-to-end control of powered prostheses,

C. P. O. Nuesslein and A. J. Young, “A deep learning framework for end-to-end control of powered prostheses,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 3988–3994, 2024

2024
[34]

Exploring severe occlusion: Multi-person 3d pose estimation with gated convolution,

R. Gu, G. Wang, and J.-N. Hwang, “Exploring severe occlusion: Multi-person 3d pose estimation with gated convolution,” in 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) , pp. 8243– 8250, 2021

2020
[35]

Sapiens: Foundation for human vision models,

R. Khirodkar et al. , “Sapiens: Foundation for human vision models,” 2024

2024
[36]

WHAM: Reconstructing world-grounded humans with accurate 3D motion,

S. Shin, J. Kim, E. Halilaj, and M. J. Black, “WHAM: Reconstructing world-grounded humans with accurate 3D motion,” in IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention,

P. B. Shull, W. Jirattigalachote, M. A. Hunt, M. R. Cutkosky, and S. L. Delp, “Quantified self and human movement: A review on the clinical impact of wearable sensing and feedback for gait analysis and intervention,” Gait & Posture , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 11–19, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

The use of wearable devices for walking and running gait analysis outside of the lab: A systematic review,

L. C. Benson, C. A. Clermont, E. Bo ˇsnjak, and R. Ferber, “The use of wearable devices for walking and running gait analysis outside of the lab: A systematic review,” Gait & Posture , vol. 63, pp. 124–138, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed,

R. Spain et al. , “Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed,” Gait & Posture , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 573–578, 2012

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Trunk sway measurements during stance and gait tasks in parkinson’s disease,

A. Adkin, B. Bloem, and J. Allum, “Trunk sway measurements during stance and gait tasks in parkinson’s disease,” Gait & Posture, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 240–249, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [5]

It pays to have a spring in your step,

G. S. Sawicki, C. L. Lewis, and D. P. Ferris, “It pays to have a spring in your step,” Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. , vol. 37, pp. 130–138, July 2009

work page 2009

[6] [6]

The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy,

G. S. Sawicki, O. N. Beck, I. Kang, and A. J. Young, “The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy,” J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., vol. 17, p. 25, Feb. 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

A deep learning strategy for emg-based joint position prediction in hip ex- oskeleton assistive robots,

A. Foroutannia, M.-R. Akbarzadeh-T, and A. Akbarzadeh, “A deep learning strategy for emg-based joint position prediction in hip ex- oskeleton assistive robots,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 75, p. 103557, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit,

J. Kim et al. , “Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit,” Science, vol. 365, no. 6454, pp. 668–672, 2019

work page 2019