Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Towards Context-Aware Clinical Motion Understanding in Daily Living at Home: Freezing of Gait Detection with Egocentric Vision

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ego-video alone spots freezing of gait, though IMUs stay stronger

desk verdict First egocentric-video FOG detection study with a careful LOSO protocol, but the abstract's context-add claim outruns the evidence and needs a fusion test or a softer conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13283 v1 pith:3MGQX4KY submitted 2026-08-13 cs.AI

Vayalet Stefanova , Diwas Lamsal , Margot Genbrugge , Maxim Yudayev , Christian Schlenstedt , Moran Gilat , Bart Vanrumste , Benjamin Filtjens This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords freezingofgaitParkinson'sdiseaseegocentricvisioncontext-awaremotionunderstandingfoundationmodelsIMUsensinghome-basedactivitiesdailylivingmultimodal
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

This paper asks whether a first-person video worn during everyday tasks can add the context that inertial sensors miss when detecting freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson's disease, because a stopped IMU trace can mean intentional stopping, object interaction, or a true freeze. Using synchronized ego-video, five body-worn IMUs, and expert annotations from 13 people with Parkinson's recorded at home, the authors show that frozen features from pretrained video models detect FOG above chance, with the best vision representation reaching AUROC 77.2, below the 83.0 of a fully trained IMU network but comparable to the best inertial foundation-model features. Qualitative per-subject analyses suggest the vision signal is not simply redundant with inertial sensing: it sometimes separates true freezes from voluntary stops better, and sometimes fails badly in low light or atypical movement. The paper's conclusion is that egocentric video is worth adding to wearable-sensor systems for context-aware monitoring, and that multimodal fusion is the natural next step.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a probe evaluation of frozen representations from pretrained foundation models: ego-video models (a single-frame image model, two third-person video models, and an egocentric video model) and time-series models for the IMU signals, each reduced to one per-window embedding and classified by a regularized logistic-regression linear probe under leave-one-subject-out with per-subject metric averaging. The supporting object is the synchronized home dataset—egocentric smart-glasses video, five body-worn IMUs, and expert FOG annotations in 13 Parkinson's patients performing doorway, hotspot, and daily-life tasks—which lets the authors compare modalities on the same windows. The design isolates the contribution of each modality's pretrained representation with a single shared classifier, and the controlled backbone pair (single-frame versus 16-frame video) isolates the value of temporal context.

What would settle it

Compute, under the same leave-one-subject-out protocol, the subject-level correlation between the prediction errors of the best ego-vision model and the best IMU model, or train a simple late fusion and check whether F1 and AUROC exceed 42.3 and 83.0 respectively; if the errors are highly correlated or fusion gives no gain, the claimed independence fails. Equally direct: re-score the reported qualitative examples (subjects 013, 006, 008, 015, 014) with independent annotators and verify that the apparent disagreements with IMU models reproduce; if they do not, the evidence for complementarity collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that egocentric video recorded during home activities contains predictive, partially non-redundant information about freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease. In a leave-one-subject-out evaluation over 13 participants, a linear probe on frozen V-JEPA2 features detected FOG with F1 32.6 and AUROC 77.2, while a temporal convolutional network trained from scratch on accelerometer signals reached F1 42.3 and AUROC 83.0; the best inertial foundation model, Chronos-2, scored F1 38.7 and AUROC 82.9. The vision result is clearly above chance and beats the single-frame image baseline (AUROC 53.6), showing temporal ego-video carries FOG-relevant signal. Qualitative side-by-side predictions show episodes where vision agrees with IMU models, some where it separates freezes from voluntary stopping better, and some where it fails (low light, object interaction without visible hands). The authors interpret this as evidence that ego-vision provides context independent of kinematics, motivating multimodal context-aware clinical monitoring, while acknowledging that a direct stop-window test shows vision alone does not reduce false alarms on voluntary stopping relative to inertial baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the qualitative cases in which ego-vision differs usefully from inertial sensing reflect a real, cohort-level complementarity; the paper does not report a quantitative test of that complementarity, so if those examples are idiosyncratic to a few subjects, the central motivation for adding ego-vision to wearable FOG monitoring is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ego-video alone detects FOG above chance in home ADL: the strongest frozen vision representation reaches AUROC 77.2, below the IMU-trained TCN's 83.0 but ahead of chance and of a single-frame image baseline.
  • Egocentric vision is not redundant with inertial sensing: qualitative agreements and disagreements across modalities suggest the visual stream carries context-containing cues, and in individual recordings it separates freezes from voluntary stops better than the IMU models.
  • Vision alone is not sufficient: low-light recordings and subjects with atypical movement produce large vision errors, and on annotated voluntary-stop windows the best vision model false-alarms more than both the trained TCN and the strongest IMU foundation model.
  • Frozen foundation-model features with a linear probe reach performance comparable to a TCN trained from scratch on the IMU stream, supporting their use in clinical settings with little labeled data.
  • Longer windows raise F1 but lower AUROC for every model, meaning temporal alignment matters and comparisons across window lengths should be read as different operating points, not as monotonic improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the decisive test of complementarity is a fusion experiment the paper leaves open—combining V-JEPA2 ego-video features with IMU signals under the same LOSO protocol should beat 42.3 F1 if the modalities are truly independent; if it does not, the independence claim is not supported.
  • Beyond the paper: a per-window or per-subject error-correlation analysis between the vision and IMU predictions would quantify how much unique information each modality carries; the paper reports only qualitative agreement, so this calculation would settle whether the apparent independence generalizes.
  • Beyond the paper: if interpretability methods show that the ego-video signal tracks environmental triggers such as doorways or narrow passages rather than the freezing motion itself, ego-vision may be more valuable for predicting FOG context than for detecting episodes, which would point to different fusion architectures.
  • Beyond the paper: the stop-window false-alarm result suggests visual context helps in some recordings but not systematically; a conditional analysis per task type (doorway, hotspot, daily life) could reveal exactly where the visual context disambiguates voluntary stopping from true freezing.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether frozen representations from pretrained egocentric-video foundation models contain information useful for detecting freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson's disease during home-based activities of daily living, with the longer-term motivation of adding contextual information to IMU-based wearables. Using synchronized egocentric video, five IMUs, and expert-annotated FOG labels from 13 participants, the authors evaluate linear probes on several frozen video and time-series foundation models and compare them with fully trained IMU-based temporal convolutional networks under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. The IMU TCN achieves the best event-detection performance (F1 42.3, AUROC 83.0), while the best video representation, V-JEPA2, reaches F1 32.6 and AUROC 77.2. The paper reports that ego-video features are above chance and, based on qualitative per-subject prediction plots, argues that ego-vision captures FOG-relevant information partly independent of IMUs. The authors are explicit that multimodal fusion was not explored and that vision did not reduce false positives on voluntary-stop windows in the aggregate.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful first demonstration that frozen ego-vision representations carry clinically meaningful FOG-related signal in a home setting, complementing inertial sensing and motivating future multimodal systems. The paper's strengths include a realistic data-collection protocol, leave-one-subject-out evaluation with per-subject metric averaging, non-parametric significance testing with Holm correction, multiple window-length and stride ablations, and a direct supplementary analysis of the specific clinical failure case of voluntary stopping. The careful quantitative protocol is a solid foundation. However, the load-bearing conclusion that ego-vision provides information independent of IMUs rests on qualitative examples and post hoc explanations rather than on a quantitative test of complementarity, and the only direct stop-window test in the supplement contradicts the motivating example. The paper's contribution is therefore best read as an exploratory study whose main claim needs either additional quantitative support or more cautious framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Abstract] The central claim that ego-vision captures FOG-relevant information independent of IMUs is not supported by a quantitative test. Section 4.3 relies on selected per-subject prediction plots and post hoc explanations (low light for subject 014, object interaction for subject 015), and the abstract and conclusion infer non-redundancy from these examples. No fusion experiment, error-correlation analysis, or paired disagreement statistic is reported. With 13 subjects and two subjects contributing no FOG-positive windows, these illustrative cases may reflect sampling noise. I recommend adding a quantitative complementarity analysis, for example McNemar's test on per-window disagreement between V-JEPA2 and the IMU baselines, a correlation of per-subject error rates, or a simple late-fusion classifier whose performance can be compared with the unimodal baselines. This is the load-bearing gap for the paper's stated motivation.
  2. [Supplementary Table 3 and §5/§6] The motivating example that visual context disambiguates voluntary stopping from freezing is directly contradicted by the reported false-positive rates on annotated stop windows: V-JEPA2 (24.9%) is worse than Chronos-2 (9.7%) and than the acc-only TCN (11.0%). The manuscript acknowledges this in the limitations and conclusion, but the abstract still states that the results support using ego-video to add contextual information to wearable sensing. The abstract and conclusion should be tempered to reflect the fact that the only quantitative context-specific test performed did not show a benefit, unless additional evidence is provided that some other aspect of context (e.g., doorway or hotspot triggers) is captured better by vision.
  3. [Table 2 and §3.4] The claim that V-JEPA2 is competitive with the IMU foundation models is based on descriptive comparisons without a statistical test between the two families. The asterisks in Table 2 indicate only differences from the TCN (acc only) baseline. Given the large per-subject standard deviations, a statement such as 'V-JEPA2 surpassed UniMTS on F1' should either be supported by a paired comparison with correction or be explicitly labeled as a descriptive observation. A Wilcoxon test on the 11 subjects with FOG would be feasible and would strengthen the interpretation of the model rankings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The Chronos-2 linear probe uses a 23,040-dimensional feature vector after mean-pooling, whereas the video models use 512-1024 dimensions; this asymmetry should be acknowledged as a potential factor in the relative performance of the IMU and vision probes, especially since only about 10,000 training windows are available.
  2. [Table 2] The table header shows 'F1↑ Recall↑ FPR↓ AUPRC↑' and then 'D H DL Overall' without a repeated 'AUROC' label; adding a subheading such as 'AUROC by task' would improve readability.
  3. [§4.1] The sentence 'All three video encoders exceeded the single-frame baseline on AUROC' is slightly ambiguous because VideoMAE-v2, EgoVideo, and V-JEPA2 are compared with DINOv3, while the text later says 'all three'; consider naming the models explicitly.
  4. [§3.2] The statement 'We therefore treat the three lengths as separate operating points rather than directly comparable conditions' is helpful, but the window-size ablation in Table 3 does not include the fully trained TCN baselines; including them would make the comparison more complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical evaluation whose predictions come from external pretrained features and expert-annotated labels; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's claims are empirical rather than derivational. FOG labels come from expert video annotation (Section 3.1) using an external gold-standard definition [13]; features come from publicly pretrained foundation models (UniMTS, Chronos-2, DINOv3, VideoMAE-v2, EgoVideo, V-JEPA2) with frozen weights, so no parameter is fitted to the target and then renamed as a prediction. The only trained components are the logistic-regression linear probes and the TCN baselines, both evaluated under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation with per-subject averaging, so the reported F1/AUROC numbers are genuine held-out results. The central claim that ego-vision may capture FOG-relevant information independent of IMUs is explicitly supported by above-chance discrimination (e.g., V-JEPA2 AUROC 77.2, significantly above the single-frame baseline) and by qualitative error patterns (Section 4.3), while the paper itself acknowledges the complementary evidence is preliminary and that fusion was not explored (Section 5) and reports that ego-vision did not reduce false alarms on stop windows (Supplementary Table 3). Self-citations such as HERMES [48] are used only as the data-collection tool, and prior FOG-detection papers by the same group are cited as related work, not as the load-bearing justification for the present results. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggled step is present; any concern about overclaiming generalizability is a correctness-risk issue, not circularity.

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

No new physical entities or theoretical constructs are introduced. The analysis depends on standard supervised ML choices (regularization, TCN architecture) and on the clinical assumption that expert-annotated video provides valid FOG labels. The free parameters listed are hand-set but the paper provides evidence that ranking is robust to the regularization choice.

free parameters (3)
  • Logistic regression regularization C = 1e-3
    Selected from a sweep over [1e-6, 10]; authors report the model ranking is unchanged at individual optima, so this does not drive the headline comparison.
  • TCN hyperparameters = block width 32, kernel size 3, dropout 0.3, weight decay 1e-3, learning rate 5e-4, 0.3 Hz high-pass cutoff
    Tuned by grid search for the fully trained baseline; different TCN tuning could shift the gap between the TCN and the frozen feature probes.
  • FOG window labeling threshold = 0.5 s minimum annotated FOG within a 2 s window
    Sets the positive class definition; the paper notes median episode duration is 0.9 s but does not report sensitivity of the main comparison to this threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Expert video annotation of FOG is an accurate gold standard for training and evaluation.
    Used throughout Section 3.1; a single expert annotated via ELAN following the updated FOG definition, but no inter-rater reliability is reported.
  • domain assumption Frozen features from pretrained foundation models preserve enough task-relevant information to support a fair modality comparison.
    The study only trains linear probes on fixed embeddings (Section 3.4); fine-tuning could change the relative ranking.
  • domain assumption Discarding windows with more than 50% missing annotations does not bias results.
    Section 3.2; missing annotations occur when feet are occluded in external camera views, a condition that may correlate with FOG or task type.
  • domain assumption The 0.5 s overlap rule for labeling a window as FOG correctly operationalizes the clinical definition.
    Section 3.2; the threshold was chosen to preserve short episodes, and the paper does not report results across alternative thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Context-Aware Clinical Motion Understanding in Daily Living at Home: Freezing of Gait Detection with Egocentric Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MGQX4KY

@misc{pith2026260813283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Context-Aware Clinical Motion Understanding in Daily Living at Home: Freezing of Gait Detection with Egocentric Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MGQX4KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13283}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding motion in daily living requires context beyond kinematics, because similar inertial patterns during activities of daily living (ADLs) can reflect intentional stopping, object interaction, or pathological movement impairment. Egocentric vision provides task-related context that may help disambiguate these cases. We investigate this challenge through freezing of gait (FOG) detection in Parkinson's disease (PD), a symptom strongly influenced by contextual factors during ADLs. Using synchronized egocentric video, wearable IMUs, and expert-annotated FOG labels collected from 13 PD participants in their homes, we evaluate frozen representations from pretrained ego-video and time-series foundation models, alongside an IMU-based TCN trained from scratch, under leave-one-subject-out evaluation. The IMU-based TCN achieved the strongest event-detection performance, reaching 42.3 F1 and 83.0 AUROC, compared with 32.6 F1 and 77.2 AUROC for V-JEPA2 ego-video features. Although ego-video alone did not outperform IMU-based sensing, it showed above-chance discrimination, and qualitative analyses suggest that egocentric vision may capture FOG-relevant information independent of IMUs. Together, these results support the use of pretrained ego-video representations to add contextual information to wearable-sensor-based clinical motion understanding in daily living.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Sensor setup for data collection. Pupil Core smart glasses for egocentric video and five Xsens DOT IMUs for lower-body inertial data, collected via a battery￾powered mini PC. (b) Representative egocentric views captured during the ADL tasks: doorway (top), hotspot (middle), daily life (bottom). chest pack containing an Intel NUC13ANKi7 mini-PC and a portable battery. We used HERMES [48] for data collection, whic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inter-subject variability in FOG occurrence during home-based ADL. Each black point represents one participant, aggregated across the three ADL task types (doorway, hotspot, and daily life) and medication states (ON and OFF). Left: total number of FOG episodes per participant. Right: cumulative FOG duration per partic￾ipant. Doorway Hotspot Daily life 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 windows 262 531 397 1115 4895 3049 2 s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Window-level FOG vs. non-FOG counts per ADL task (doorway, hotspot, daily life) for the three window lengths, pooled over the 13 cohort subjects. evaluation, each window was further assigned to whichever ADL task (doorway, hotspot, or daily life) represented more than 50% of its duration. Windows with more than 50% missing annotations, caused by occasional feet occlusion in the external camera views, were discarded … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental Setup. For each window, features are extracted from IMU (UniMTS, Chronos-2) and ego-vision (VideoMAE-v2, V-JEPA 2, EgoVideo, DI￾NOv3) foundation models. All models are evaluated under leave-one-subject-out cross￾validation, with a fully trained TCN on the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predictions over time for the ground-truth (GT), the trained TCN, the IMU FMs, and V-JEPA2. Each timestep represents a model prediction made every 0.5 s using 2 s windows of input signal. The segments are shown as FOG, Stop, or non-FOG. Stop is treated as non-FOG durin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: NeurIPS (2025),https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper / 2025 / hash / bedc73979a95be7727af0c9a99c675ce - Abstract - Datasets _ and_Benchmarks_Track.html

    Adeli, V., Klabučar, I., Rajabi, J., Filtjens, B., Mehraban, S., Wang, D., Seo, H., Hoang, T.H., Do, M.N., Muller, C., de Oliveira, C.N., Coelho, D.B., Ginis, P., Gilat, M., Nieuwboer, A., Spildooren, J., McKay, J.L., Kwon, H., Clifford, G., Esper, C.D., Factor, S.A., Genias, I., Dadashzadeh, A., Shum, L., Whone, A., Mirmehdi, M., Iaboni, A., Taati, B.: C...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15821 (2025).https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.15821

    Ansari, A.F., Shchur, O., Küken, J., Auer, A., Han, B., Mercado, P., Rangapuram, S.S., Shen, H., Stella, L., Zhang, X., Goswami, M., Kapoor, S., Maddix, D.C., Guerron, P., Hu, T., Yin, J., Erickson, N., Desai, P.M., Wang, H., Rangwala, H., Karypis, G., Wang, Y., Bohlke-Schneider, M.: Chronos-2: From univariate to universal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXi...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15821 2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985 (2025)

    Assran, M., Bardes, A., Fan, D., Garrido, Q., Howes, R., Komeili, M., Muckley, M., Rizvi, A., Roberts, C., Sinha, K., Zholus, A., Arnaud, S., Gejji, A., Martin, A., Robert Hogan, F., Dugas, D., Bojanowski, P., Khalidov, V., Labatut, P., Massa, F., Szafraniec, M., Krishnakumar, K., Li, Y., Ma, X., Chandar, S., Meier, F., LeCun, Y., Rabbat, M., Ballas, N.: ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09985 2025

  4. [4]

    MethodsX10, 102106 (2023).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102106

    Bansal, S.K., Basumatary, B., Bansal, R., Sahani, A.K.: Techniques for the detec- tion and management of freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease–a systematic review and future perspectives. MethodsX10, 102106 (2023).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102106

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Move- ment Disorders19(8), 871–884 (2004).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10

    Bloem, B.R., Hausdorff, J.M., Visser, J.E., Giladi, N.: Falls and freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease: A review of two interconnected, episodic phenomena. Move- ment Disorders19(8), 871–884 (2004).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1002/mds.20115,https://movementdisorders.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/mds.20115

    doi:10.1002/mds.20115 2004

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258 16 V

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M.S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al.: On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258 16 V. Stefanova, D. Lamsal et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 2021

  7. [7]

    Frontiers in neurology14, 1326300 (2023).https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1326300

    Conde, C.I., Lang, C., Baumann, C.R., Easthope, C.A., Taylor, W.R., Ravi, D.K.: Triggers for freezing of gait in individuals with parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Frontiers in neurology14, 1326300 (2023).https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1326300

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10

    Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Ma, J., Molti- santi, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., et al.: Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision130(1), 33–55 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11263-021-01531-2

    work page 2022

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Scientific reports 10(1), 15600 (2020).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020- 72397-6

    vanDijsseldonk,R.B.,vanNes,I.J.,Geurts,A.C.,Keijsers,N.L.:Exoskeletonhome and community use in people with complete spinal cord injury. Scientific reports 10(1), 15600 (2020).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020- 72397-6

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation19(1), 48 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12984-022-01025-3

    Filtjens, B., Ginis, P., Nieuwboer, A., Slaets, P., Vanrumste, B.: Automated freez- ing of gait assessment with marker-based motion capture and multi-stage spatial- temporal graph convolutional neural networks. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation19(1), 48 (2022).htt...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Filtjens, B., McCrum, C.: Perspectives on interdisciplinary posture and gait re- search from the ispgr 2025 world congress: Where do we stand and what are the next steps? Gait and Posture124, 110058 (2026).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.110058

    2026

  4. [12]

    Journal of Parkinson’s disease9(4), 821–824 (2019)

    Gilat, M.: How to annotate freezing of gait from video: a standardized method using open-source software. Journal of Parkinson’s disease9(4), 821–824 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-191700

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Nature Reviews Neurology pp

    Gilat, M., Nonnekes, J., Factor, S.A., Bloem, B.R., Nutt, J.G., Giladi, N., Hallett, M., Nieuwboer, A., Horak, F.B., Weiss, D., et al.: An updated definition of freezing of gait. Nature Reviews Neurology pp. 1–10 (2026).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01179-3

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine61(6), 407– 413 (2018).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.08.002

    Ginis, P., Nackaerts, E., Nieuwboer, A., Heremans, E.: Cueing for people with parkinson’s disease with freezing of gait: a narrative review of the state-of-the-art and novel perspectives. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine61(6), 407– 413 (2018).https://doi.org/http...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    In: 2024 Freezing of Gait Detection with IMU and Egocentric Vision 17 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Grauman, K., Westbury, A., Torresani, L., Kitani, K., Malik, J., Afouras, T., Ashutosh, K., Baiyya, V., Bansal, S., Boote, B., Byrne, E., Chavis, Z., Chen, J., Cheng, F., Chu, F.J., Crane, S., Dasgupta, A., Dong, J., Escobar, M., Forigua, C., Gebreselasie, A., Haresh, S., Huan...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Iclr1(2), 3 (2022)

    Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. Iclr1(2), 3 (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685

    2022 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    PloS one16(8), e0256541 (2021).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256541

    Kluge, F., Del Din, S., Cereatti, A., Gaßner, H., Hansen, C., Helbostad, J.L., Klucken, J., Küderle, A., Müller, A., Rochester, L., et al.: Consensus based frame- work for digital mobility monitoring. PloS one16(8), e0256541 (2021).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/jour...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    In: 2024 IEEE/ACM Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Tech- nologies (CHASE)

    Koltermann, K., Clapham, J., Blackwell, G., Jung, W., Burnet, E.N., Gao, Y., Shao, H., Cloud, L., Pretzer-Aboff, I., Zhou, G.: Gait-guard: Turn-aware freez- ing of gait detection for non-intrusive intervention systems. In: 2024 IEEE/ACM Conference on Connected Health: Applicat...

    2024

  11. [19]

    In: proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Lea, C., Flynn, M.D., Vidal, R., Reiter, A., Hager, G.D.: Temporal convolutional networks for action segmentation and detection. In: proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 156–165 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the 30thACMSIGKDDconferenceonknowledgediscoveryanddatamining.pp.6555– 6565 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671451

    Liang, Y., Wen, H., Nie, Y., Jiang, Y., Jin, M., Song, D., Pan, S., Wen, Q.: Foun- dation models for time series analysis: A tutorial and survey. In: Proceedings of the 30thACMSIGKDDconferenceonknowledgediscoveryanddatamining.pp.6555– 6565 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.or...

    2024

  13. [21]

    In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp

    Loper, M., Mahmood, N., Romero, J., Pons-Moll, G., Black, M.J.: Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model. In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp. 851–866. Association for Computing Machinery (2023).https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2816795.2818013

    2023

  14. [22]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2019),https://openreview.net/forum? id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2019),https://openreview.net/forum? id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  15. [23]

    Movement Disorders34(6), 783–790 (2019).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1002/mds.27709

    Mancini, M., Bloem, B.R., Horak, F.B., Lewis, S.J., Nieuwboer, A., Nonnekes, J.: Clinical and methodological challenges for assessing freezing of gait: future per- spectives. Movement Disorders34(6), 783–790 (2019).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1002/mds.27709

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Journal of Parkinson’s Disease15(1), 19–40 (2025).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1177/1877718X241301065

    Mancini, M., McKay, J.L., Cockx, H., D’Cruz, N., Esper, C.D., Filtjens, B., Heimler, B., MacKinnon, C.D., Palmerini, L., Roerdink, M., et al.: Technology for measuring freezing of gait: Current state of the art and recommendations. Journal of Parkinson’s Disease15(1), 19–40 (2...

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    1016/j.brs.2023.07.003

    Melbourne, J., Kehnemouyi, Y., O’Day, J., Wilkins, K., Gala, A., Petrucci, M., et al.: Kinematic adaptive deep brain stimulation for gait impairment and freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease (2023).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.brs.2023.07.003

    2023

  18. [26]

    Sensors22(7), 2613 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ s22072613

    Mesin, L., Porcu, P., Russu, D., Farina, G., Borzì, L., Zhang, W., Guo, Y., Olmo, G.: A multi-modal analysis of the freezing of gait phenomenon in parkinson’s dis- ease. Sensors22(7), 2613 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ s22072613

    2022

  19. [27]

    In: International Conference on Advances in Distributed Computing and Machine Learning

    Mir, A.N., Nissar, I., Ahmed, M., Masood, S., Rizvi, D.R.: Parkinson’s disease diagnosis through deep learning: A novel lstm-based approach for freezing of gait detection. In: International Conference on Advances in Distributed Computing and Machine Learning. pp. 201–215. Spri...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Sensors24(15), 4914 (2024).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.3390/s24154914

    Moore, J., Celik, Y., Stuart, S., McMeekin, P., Walker, R., Hetherington, V., Godfrey, A.: Using video technology and ai within parkinson’s disease free-living fall risk assessment. Sensors24(15), 4914 (2024).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.3390/s24154914

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Sensors23(2), 891 (2023).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ s23020891

    Moore, J., Stuart, S., McMeekin, P., Walker, R., Celik, Y., Pointon, M., Godfrey, A.: Enhancing free-living fall risk assessment: contextualizing mobility based imu data. Sensors23(2), 891 (2023).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ s23020891

    2023

  22. [30]

    Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation19(1), 79 (2022).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01022-6

    Nouredanesh, M., Godfrey, A., Powell, D., Tung, J.: Egocentric vision-based de- tection of surfaces: towards context-aware free-living digital biomarkers for gait and fall risk assessment. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation19(1), 79 (2022).https://doi.org/https://d...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18070 (2024).https://doi

    Pei, B., Chen, G., Xu, J., He, Y., Liu, Y., Pan, K., Huang, Y., Wang, Y., Lu, T., Wang, L., Qiao, Y.: Egovideo: Exploring egocentric foundation model and downstream adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18070 (2024).https://doi. org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18070

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies

    Qian, C., Chi, C., Clapham, J., Qi, J., Zhang, Z., Blackwell, G., Pretzer-Aboff, I., Cloud, L., Ma, M., Zhou, G., et al.: Trigger-finder: A real-time freezing-of-gait trigger detection system using an instruction-tuned multimodal large language model. In: Proceedings of the AC...

    2025

  25. [33]

    IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials27(6), 3820–3860 (2025).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10

    Qu, G., Chen, Q., Wei, W., Lin, Z., Chen, X., Huang, K.: Mobile edge intelligence for large language models: A contemporary survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials27(6), 3820–3860 (2025).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1109/COMST.2025.3527641

    2025

  26. [34]

    PloS one12(2), e0171764 (2017).https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171764

    Rodríguez-Martín, D., Samà, A., Pérez-López, C., Català, A., Moreno Arostegui, J.M., Cabestany, J., Bayés, À., Alcaine, S., Mestre, B., Prats, A., et al.: Home detection of freezing of gait using support vector machines through a single waist- worn triaxial accelerometer. PloS...

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering69(7), 2256–2267 (2022).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2022.3140258

    Shi,B.,Tay,A.,Au,W.L.,Tan,D.M.,Chia,N.S.,Yen,S.C.:Detectionoffreezingof gait using convolutional neural networks and data from lower limb motion sensors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering69(7), 2256–2267 (2022).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2022.3140258

    2022

  28. [36]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence116, 105482 (2022).https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105482,https://www

    Sigcha, L., Borzì, L., Pavón, I., Costa, N., Costa, S., Arezes, P., López, J.M., De Arcas, G.: Improvement of performance in freezing of gait detection in parkinson’s disease using transformer networks and a single waist-worn triaxial accelerometer. Engineering Applications of...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2026), https://openreview.net/forum?id=2NlGyqNjns, featured Certification

    Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khali- dov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S.E., Ramamonjisoa, M., Massa, F., HAZIZA, D., Wehrstedt, L., Wang, J., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Sentana, L., Roberts, C., Vedaldi, A., Tolan, J., Brandt, J., Coupr...

    2026

  30. [38]

    Tong, Z., Song, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L.: Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural in- Freezing of Gait Detection with IMU and Egocentric Vision 19 formation processing systems35, 10078–10093 (2022).http...

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    In: 2024 International conference on ad- vances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS)

    Varghese, R., Sambath, M.: Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness. In: 2024 International conference on ad- vances in data engineering and intelligent computing systems (ADICS). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/1...

    2024

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03097 (2025).https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03097

    Vinod,A.,Pandit,S.,Vavre,A.,Liu,L.:Egovlm:Policyoptimizationforegocentric video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03097 (2025).https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.03097

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Wang, L., Huang, B., Zhao, Z., Tong, Z., He, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Qiao, Y.: Videomae v2: Scaling video masked autoencoders with dual masking. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 14549–14560 (June 2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    In: 2020 42nd Annual International Con- ference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)

    Wang, Y., Beuving, F., Nonnekes, J., Cohen, M.X., Long, X., Aarts, R.M., Van Wezel, R.: Freezing of gait detection in parkinson’s disease via multimodal analysis of eeg and accelerometer signals. In: 2020 42nd Annual International Con- ference of the IEEE Engineering in Medici...

    2020

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems

    Xu, H., Zhou, P., Tan, R., Li, M., Shen, G.: Limu-bert: Unleashing the potential of unlabeled data for imu sensing applications. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. pp. 220–233 (2021).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3485730.3485937

    2021

  36. [44]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(10), 12113– 12132 (2023).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3275156

    Xu, P., Zhu, X., Clifton, D.A.: Multimodal learning with transformers: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(10), 12113– 12132 (2023).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3275156

    2023

  37. [45]

    npj Parkinson’s Disease (2026).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41531-026-01407-7

    Yang,P.K.,Carlon, J., Goris, M., Klaver,E., Nonnekes, J.,van Wezel, R.J.,Alcock, L., Yarnall, A.J., Rochester, L., Hansen, C., et al.: Deep learning for freezing of gait assessment using inertial measurement units: a multicentre validation study. npj Parkinson’s Disease (2026)...

    2026

  38. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering32, 2699–2708 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2024

    Yang, P.K., Filtjens, B., Ginis, P., Goris, M., Nieuwboer, A., Gilat, M., Slaets, P., Vanrumste, B.: Automatic detection and assessment of freezing of gait manifesta- tions. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering32, 2699–2708 (2024).https://doi.org/...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (2025).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/ TNSRE.2025.3545110

    Yang, P.K., Filtjens, B., Ginis, P., Goris, M., Nieuwboer, A., Gilat, M., Slaets, P., Vanrumste, B.: Multimodal freezing of gait detection: Analyzing the benefits and limitations of physiological data. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (2025).h...

    2025

  40. [48]

    org/abs/2601.12610

    Yudayev, M., Carlon, J., Lamsal, D., Stefanova, V., Filtjens, B.: Hermes: A unified open-source framework for realtime multimodal physiological sensing, edge ai, and intervention in closed-loop smart healthcare applications (2026),https://arxiv. org/abs/2601.12610

    2026

  41. [49]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence46(8), 5625–5644 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2024

    Zhang, J., Huang, J., Jin, S., Lu, S.: Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence46(8), 5625–5644 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2024. 3369699 20 V. Stefanova, D. Lamsal et al

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Scientific data9(1), 606 (2022).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01713-8

    Zhang, W., Yang, Z., Li, H., Huang, D., Wang, L., Wei, Y., Zhang, L., Ma, L., Feng, H., Pan, J., et al.: Multimodal data for the detection of freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease. Scientific data9(1), 606 (2022).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01713-8

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems37, 107469–107493 (2024).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.19818

    Zhang, X., Teng, D., Chowdhury, R.R., Li, S., Hong, D., Gupta, R.K., Shang, J.: Unimts: Unified pre-training for motion time series. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems37, 107469–107493 (2024).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.19818

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13217 (2024).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.13217

    Zhao, L., Gundavarapu, N.B., Yuan, L., Zhou, H., Yan, S., Sun, J.J., Friedman, L., Qian, R., Weyand, T., Zhao, Y., et al.: Videoprism: A foundational visual encoder for video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13217 (2024).https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv....

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Towards Context-Aware Clinical Motion Understanding in Daily Living at Home: Freezing of Gait Detection with Egocentric Vision

    Zoetewei, D., Ginis, P., Goris, M., Gilat, M., Herman, T., Brozgol, M., Thumm, P.C.,Hausdorff,J.M.,Nieuwboer,A.,D’Cruz,N.:Whichgaittasksproducereliable outcome measures of freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease? Journal of Parkinson’s Disease14(6), 1163–1174 (2024).https://do...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Set the dining table for two people, sit at the table, then clear the table

  47. [55]

    Walk from the couch/chair to the kitchen, fill a glass with water, get a snack, and return to the couch/chair

  48. [56]

    (Fictively) water the plants in the living room

  49. [57]

    Walk to every corner of the living room

  50. [58]

    Turn on the main lights in all rooms tested

  51. [59]

    Walk around the coffee table/dining table in both directions

  52. [60]

    Walk to the front door, open and close it, then return to the living room

  53. [61]

    Walk from the couch/chair to the table, get a book/newspaper/tablet, walk back to the couch/chair, and sit down

  54. [62]

    Empty and fill the dishwasher: (a) If no dishwasher is present: (fictively) wash some dishes and put the clean tableware in its correct location

  55. [63]

    Close and open the curtains for all windows in all rooms

  56. [64]

    Go look at two art pieces or pictures in your house

  57. [65]

    Clean/dust off some surfaces or furniture in the rooms

  58. [66]

    Get a pair of shoes, put them next to the couch, sit on the couch, get up, and put the shoes back. 2 V. Stefanova, D. Lamsal et al. T able 1:Window counts across strides. Stride 0.5 s 1.0 s 1.5 s Overlap 75% 50% 25% Windows 10,249 5,118 3,420 FOG windows 1,190 605 410 T able 2...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.