PressureMesh: 3D Human Mesh Estimation from Multi-Device Pressure Images

Boyan Liu; Changhai Ma; Fangting Xie; Heyu Ding; Jiayue Yuan; Mengting Niu; Quan Wan; Xiaohui Cai; Yi Ke; Yunkang Zhang

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 22 references

PressureMesh: 3D Human Mesh Estimation from Multi-Device Pressure Images

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing bed, chair and carpet pressure mats reconstructs 3D human body meshes from pressure alone.

desk verdict The first real multi-device pressure dataset plus a sensible fusion network; the headline number is a preliminary benchmark awaiting label validation, not a proven clinical accuracy claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09550 v1 pith:DAUDALUM submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV

Changhai Ma , Ziyu Wu , Yunkang Zhang , Fangting Xie , Mengting Niu , Heyu Ding , Quan Wan , Jiayue Yuan

show 3 more authors

Boyan Liu Yi Ke Xiaohui Cai

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords multi-devicepressuresensing3DhumanmeshestimationSMPLMixtureofExpertstemporaldataprivacy-preservingposedataset

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 argues that pressure images from several everyday surfaces—a bed, a chair, and a carpet—carry complementary information that, when fused, is enough to reconstruct a full 3D human mesh without any camera. To test this, the authors built MDP-Net, an end-to-end network that reads temporal pressure sequences from all three devices and outputs SMPL body parameters, and MDP, a dataset of synchronized multi-view RGB and pressure recordings from 12 subjects. On MDP, MDP-Net reaches 12.6 cm mean per-joint position error and 14.5 cm mean per-vertex error, beating single-device baselines on lying, sitting, and standing subsets. If the result holds, it makes multi-device pressure a viable privacy-preserving input for rehabilitation, in-home monitoring, and human-computer interaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage Mixture-of-Experts fusion module. A gating MLP with softmax produces expert weights from the concatenated device features; each expert is an MLP learning a distinct transformation of the fused features; the weighted sum is passed to a regressor for a first SMPL estimate, and a second gating stage takes the initial pose parameters as additional context to refine the estimate. The design separates fusion (which experts to trust) from regression (pressure features to body parameters), and the authors show that removing either stage degrades performance.

What would settle it

Run MDP-Net's training and evaluation on a multi-device pressure dataset whose ground truth comes from a calibrated optical motion-capture system instead of pseudo-labels; if the fusion gain over single-device baselines shrinks or the 12.6 cm error doubles, the reported accuracy is largely a measure of label quality, not of pressure-based reconstruction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fusing temporal pressure data from multiple devices enables direct 3D human mesh estimation, and that a Mixture-of-Experts fusion mechanism is an effective way to combine the heterogeneous signals. Each device's pressure sequence is encoded by a ResNet-18 followed by a Transformer; the three feature streams are concatenated and passed through a two-stage MoE module whose gating network weights a set of expert MLPs, and a dedicated regressor then predicts SMPL pose, shape, and translation. The authors report 12.6 cm MPJPE and 14.5 cm MPVE on the unseen-group split of their MDP dataset, and show consistent gains over single-device baselines on all three pose subsets. They interpret this as evidence that cross-device pressure complementarity expands the sensing range and resolves ambiguities that any single surface leaves open.

Load-bearing premise

The pseudo-SMPL labels derived from multi-view RGB—OpenPose keypoints, triangulation, then EasyMocap/SMPLify optimization—are accurate enough and time-aligned enough with the 15 Hz pressure streams to be treated as ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Pressure-based monitoring can now cover the full daily loop of lying, sitting, and standing, because no single mat needs to see the whole body.
The MDP dataset gives the community the first synchronized multi-device pressure benchmark, with 2D/3D joint and SMPL labels for future fusion strategies.
The reported cross-subject generalization (15.2 cm MPJPE, only 2.6 cm above the unseen-group result) suggests the learned pressure-to-mesh mapping is not memorizing individual subjects.
Privacy-preserving rehabilitation and in-home monitoring could use the same pipeline without RGB during inference.
The low temporal acceleration error (18.0 mm/s²) indicates that the estimated meshes are temporally stable enough for continuous monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to inspect the learned gating weights: if the model truly learns complementary experts, the weights should differ by pose (e.g., rely on the chair expert while sitting, the bed expert while lying), which the paper does not report.
Because the 12.6 cm error is measured against pseudo-labels generated from multi-view RGB, a controlled comparison on motion-capture ground truth would reveal how much of the apparent accuracy is due to label quality rather than pressure-based reconstruction.
The same multi-surface fusion idea could transfer to other contact surfaces such as sofas, wheelchairs, or floors, potentially enabling whole-home pressure-based sensing without additional cameras.
The current pipeline assumes a single person; extending to multi-person pressure scenes would require separating contact regions before fusion.

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

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this paper's contribution is the MDP dataset—synchronized bed, chair, and carpet pressure with RGB-derived SMPL labels—and the first network designed for that setting. The fusion claim is plausible and the ablation (w/o MoE) supports it. The headline 12.6 cm MPJPE is a useful milestone for pressure-based pose, but it is not yet a robust accuracy estimate.

What's genuinely new: no prior dataset has synchronized pressure from multiple device types, and no prior method fuses them for 3D mesh estimation. The architecture is a straightforward ResNet-18 per device plus Transformer temporal encoders and a two-stage MoE gating; that's less novel than the dataset itself. The experiments include fourfold cross-validation and an unseen-subject split, which is more than many dataset papers do. The w/o MoE ablation (14.8 vs 11.8 MPJPE) is the cleanest evidence that the fusion and gating help.

Where it's soft, in order of real impact. First, the pseudo-label pipeline: OpenPose, triangulation, EasyMocap/SMPLify. The paper calls the labels high-precision but gives no validation against marker-based MoCap or manual 3D error. Even worse, the temporal smoothing loss (Eq. 2-3) explicitly smooths the ground truth, so the Accel metric is likely deflated by construction. That doesn't kill the MPJPE result, but it makes the dynamics numbers hard to interpret. Second, Table 3's single-device baselines are uneven: PiMesh retrained on carpet, and Zhao et al. outputs joints not meshes. The comparison is directionally fine but not rigorous. Third, 12 subjects is small, and the per-fold spread in unseen-subject MPJPE (12.2 to 17.0 cm) shows the average is fragile. No code or data release is mentioned, which is a problem for a dataset paper.

The stress test's claim that the numbers are 'uninterpretable' is overstated. The MPJPE is an upper bound on true error if labels are noisy, but the paper's main claim—that multi-device fusion beats single-device—doesn't collapse. The dataset itself is the asset.

Who this is for: anyone working on pressure-based pose estimation, privacy-preserving monitoring, or tactile sensing. It's a genuine new benchmark, and the method is a reasonable baseline. It deserves a serious referee, though I'd expect major revisions.

My recommendation: send to peer review, with requests for label validation (even a small MoCap subset), standard deviations, and a commitment to release the dataset and code.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces MDP-Net, which estimates 3D human meshes directly from temporal pressure images collected by three devices (bed, chair, and carpet), using a two-stage Mixture-of-Experts fusion module. The authors also contribute the MDP dataset, comprising synchronized multi-view RGB and pressure sequences from 12 subjects, with pseudo-SMPL annotations generated through OpenPose, triangulation, and EasyMocap-style optimization. On their dataset, MDP-Net reports 12.6 cm MPJPE and 14.5 cm MPVE in an unseen-group protocol, and 15.2 cm MPJPE in an unseen-subject protocol, outperforming single-device baselines in lying, sitting, and standing subsets. The paper includes ablations of the temporal encoder, MoE module, regressor, and expert configurations.

Significance. If the reported numbers hold, the work introduces a genuinely new input modality for privacy-preserving 3D pose and shape monitoring, and the dataset is the first multi-device pressure resource of its kind. The paper is also commendable for its clear experimental structure: cross-validation protocols, ablations, and a concrete architecture. The core limitation is that all quantitative claims rest on pseudo-SMPL labels whose accuracy is not independently validated; with only 12 subjects and no released code or data, the headline 12.6 cm MPJPE is not yet interpretable as evidence for the feasibility of pressure-based mesh estimation. The strengths are the novelty of the multi-device fusion idea, the synchronized data collection effort, and the systematic ablation study.

major comments (5)

[Section 3.2] The pseudo-SMPL labels are generated from multi-view RGB via OpenPose, triangulation, and EasyMocap/SMPLify optimization, with manual corrections. No quantitative validation of these labels against independent ground truth is provided. This is load-bearing because every supervised training and evaluation in Tables 2-5 uses these labels; if the labels carry systematic bias (e.g., OpenPose failures under occlusions, which are precisely the lying/sitting scenarios studied), the reported MPJPE and MPVE would reflect label noise rather than true pose accuracy. The authors should add a validation study on a held-out subset, comparing the fitted SMPL joints against manually annotated 3D joints or a marker-based MoCap system, and should quantify the number and magnitude of manual corrections applied.
[Table 2 / Section 5.2] Across the four unseen-group folds, MPJPE ranges from 11.8 to 13.4 cm, and across the five unseen-subject folds it ranges from 12.2 to 17.0 cm, yet the paper reports only averages without standard deviations or per-subject breakdowns. With only two test subjects per unseen-subject fold, the spread is substantial, and the claim of a 'marginal increase of 2.9 cm' is not supported without variance estimates or a paired analysis. Please report fold-wise subject-level results, standard deviations, or confidence intervals, and perform a statistical test for the unseen-group versus unseen-subject comparison.
[Table 3] The single-device baselines are not matched in architecture, output modality, or evaluation metric. The bed and carpet baselines reuse the PiMesh architecture (the carpet setting is an acknowledged retraining), and the chair baseline outputs only 3D joints, leaving MPVE and PA-MPJPE missing for the sitting subset. Consequently, the comparison does not isolate the fusion benefit; the improvement could arise from MDP-Net's backbone, loss functions, or training procedure rather than multi-device fusion. The authors should include same-architecture single-input controls (e.g., MDP-Net trained on only bed, only chair, only carpet) with all metrics, or use the original published methods with released code.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (6)] The 'Contact' function in the second-stage gating input G = Gate2(Contact(F_cat, θ1)) is never defined or described. Its implementation, output dimension, and how it combines F_cat with θ1 are unspecified. Since this is a component of the proposed two-stage MoE, it should be defined formally in the main text or removed from the equation.
[Section 5.1] The cross-validation protocol holds out 'the two subjects with the least data' for validation and 'two other subjects' for testing, but the selection criteria and whether the same subjects are reused across folds are not stated. With 12 subjects, the split choices can materially affect the results. Please clarify the validation/testing subject identities, the data distribution per subject, and how the five folds are constructed.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.4, Eq. (1)] The loss notation is inconsistent: Eq. (1) uses '7' as a superscript for λ_2d and 'λ 3d' in the second term, and later weights are named ω_s, ω_p, ω_t without explicit definition. Please unify the notation.
[References] Reference [1] contains a typo: 'P-roceedings' should be 'Proceedings'.
[Figure 4] The architecture diagram uses 'N' and 'K' without prior definitions; these are only introduced in the ablation discussion. Please define them near the figure.
[Throughout] Several instances of 'T able' appear in the text (e.g., 'T able 1', 'T able 2', 'T able 3'); these should be corrected to 'Table'.
[Section 5.2] The qualitative evaluation in Fig. 5 is described as 'accurate and plausible', but no quantitative measure of plausibility (e.g., contact consistency or joint angle plausibility) is reported. Adding such a metric would strengthen the evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the pressure-to-mesh prediction is supervised by RGB-derived pseudo-labels, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that MDP-Net estimates 3D human meshes from multi-device pressure sequences—is a standard supervised regression from pressure input to SMPL targets. The targets are generated independently from synchronized multi-view RGB via OpenPose, triangulation, and EasyMocap/SMPLify optimization (Sec. 3.2, Eqs. 1–3); pressure data are not used in label generation, so the reported 12.6 cm MPJPE is not a fitted quantity equivalent to the input by construction. The ablations (Table 4: w/o MoE 14.8 vs. Base 11.8) and single-device comparisons (Table 3) provide internal evidence for the fusion benefit that is not definitional. The pseudo-label accuracy is a correctness/validation concern, not circularity: unvalidated OpenPose/EasyMocap labels could bias the numbers, but that is an assumption about label quality, not an equivalence between prediction and input. The paper does cite several earlier works by overlapping authors (PiMesh [8], Pi-HMR [9], PidHMR [10], Zhao et al. [14]) and uses PiMesh as a bed/carpet baseline, but these citations are contextual or comparative rather than load-bearing premises of the main claim; no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is imported from them. Hence no circular step can be exhibited, and the central derivation is self-contained aside from a mild self-citation presence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claim rests on domain assumptions rather than mathematical derivations: pressure contact patterns are assumed to determine full-body pose, and RGB-derived pseudo labels are assumed to be accurate ground truth. Free parameters are the loss weights and expert configuration. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Loss weights (lambda_3d, lambda_smpl, lambda_v, omega_s, omega_p, omega_t) = Not stated in text
Eq. 8-11 use six weighting coefficients that are tuned by hand; their values are not reported.
Expert counts (N, K) = N=5, K=3
Selected from Table 5 based on validation performance; an ad hoc configuration choice.
Temporal sequence length L, batch size, learning rate
Training hyperparameters are not reported in the main text, so the exact setup is underspecified.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Pressure images from bed, chair, and carpet contain sufficient information to regress full 3D SMPL meshes.
Central premise of Section 4; if false, the network is learning dataset biases.
domain assumption Multi-view RGB-derived pseudo labels (OpenPose + triangulation + EasyMocap optimization) are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for training and evaluation.
Section 3.2; label noise becomes the reported error floor.
domain assumption Pressure and RGB streams are synchronized and geometrically aligned well enough for supervision.
Section 3.1 describes simultaneous capture but provides no synchronization error analysis.
ad hoc to paper A Mixture-of-Experts with five experts corresponds to five 'basic motion patterns' and improves fusion.
Section 5.2 and Table 5; the expert count is justified by motion pattern taxonomy rather than a formal analysis.
domain assumption SMPL parameter space adequately represents human body shape variation for this task.
Section 3.2, Prelim; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PressureMesh: 3D Human Mesh Estimation from Multi-Device Pressure Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DAUDALUM

@misc{pith2026260809550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PressureMesh: 3D Human Mesh Estimation from Multi-Device Pressure Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DAUDALUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09550}
}

read the original abstract

Human pose monitoring is crucial in fields such as rehabilitation assessment and human-computer interaction. Due to its privacy-preserving nature, pressure-based human pose monitoring has become a primary approach for unobtrusive sensing. However, existing methods are generally limited to a single device, which restricts the effective monitoring range. To address this limitation, we propose MDP-Net, an end-to-end network capable of directly estimating human meshes from temporal pressure data across multiple devices. We introduce a multimodal fusion mechanism inspired by the Mixture of Experts (MoE) framework to achieve effective complementarity and enhancement of cross-device pressure information. To support the training and evaluation of MDP-Net, we constructed MDP, a high-quality multi-device temporal pressure dataset that includes various pose labels such as 2D/3D joints and human meshes. Experimental results demonstrate that MDP-Net achieves a joint position error of 12.6 cm on the MDP dataset. These results prove that fusing multi-device pressure information is an effective and promising new solution for daily human pose monitoring.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09550 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The architecture of our system for dataset collection. (a) shows the overall architecture of our system, comprising seven cameras and three pressure-sensing devices. (b) displays the specific coverage areas and sensor parameters of the pressure-sensing devices. Rectangular boxes of the same color in (a) and (b) represent the same device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Some examples of 3D projection and manual correction. We highlight the correction positions by red ellipses. 3D Keypoints and SMPL Label Generation. Initially, we performed camera calibration using MATLAB to unify the world coordinate origins and obtain the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters for all cameras. Subsequently, based on these calibration results, the 3D spatial positions of the human joints were recons… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The overview framework of our proposed network MDP-Net. (a) shows MDPNet’s overall architecture, processing multi-device temporal pressure inputs to generate SMPL model predictions. (b) and (c) represent the two-stage MoE design, where the expert networks parameters a…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison between Our Method and Single-Device Baseline Predictions. We highlight the pressure-activated regions by red ellipses. Pred: Predictions, SD: SingleDevice Methods. Ablation Study. Our ablation study systematically evaluates the impact of each core componen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Keep it SMPL: Automatic Estimation of 3D Human Pose and Shape from a Single Image

Bogo F., Kanazawa A., Lassner C., et al.: Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3d human pose and shape from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.08128 (2016) 14 Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Zhang H., Tian Y., Zhou X., et al.: Pymaf: 3d human pose and shape regression with pyramidal mesh alignment feedback loop. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 11426-11436 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

In: Proceedings of the International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

Omran M., Lassner C., Pons-Moll G., et al.: Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape estimation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 484-494 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

In: P-roceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Zhao M., Liu Y., Raghu A., et al.: Through-wall human mesh recovery using radio signals. In: P-roceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 10112-10121 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Zhao M., Li T., Alsheikh M.A., et al.: Through-wall human pose estimation using radio signals. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 7356-7365 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Yan K.,Wang F.,Qian B.,et al.: Person-in-wifi 3d: End-to-end multi-person 3d pose estimation with wi-fi. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 969-978 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Wang F., Zhou S., Panev S., et al.: Person-in-wifi: Fine-grained person perception using wifi. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 5451-5460 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

In: Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT)

Wu, Z., Xie, F., Fang, Y., Liang, Z., Wan, Q., Xiong, Y., Cai, X.: Seeing through the tactile: 3d human shape estimation from temporal in-bed pressure images. In: Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT). 8(2) (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 22 references

[9]

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

Wu, Z., Xiong, Y., Niu, M., et al.: Pi-hmr: Towards robust in-bed temporal hu- man shape reconstruction with contact pressure sensing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 27739–27749 (2025)

2025
[10]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom)

Wan, Q., Wu, Z., Xie, F., et al.: In-bed pressure image-supported diffusion for 3d human mesh recovery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom). pp. 89–98 (2025)

2025
[11]

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

Luo, Y., Li, Y., Foshey, M., et al.: Intelligent carpet: Inferring 3d human pose from tactile signals. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 11255–11265 (2021)

2021
[12]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Ren, S., Lu, Y., Huang, J., et al.: Motionpro: Exploring the role of pressure in human mocap and beyond. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 27760–27770 (2025)

2025
[13]

In: Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT).7(4) (2024)

Chen, W., Hu, Y., Song, W., et al.: Cavatar: Real-time human activity mesh re- construction via tactile carpets. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT).7(4) (2024)

2024
[14]

In: Proceedings of the 2024 2nd Asia Conference on Computer Vision, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition (2024)

Zhao, M., Xie, F., Wu, Z., et al.: 3d human pose estimation using pressure images on a smart chair. In: Proceedings of the 2024 2nd Asia Conference on Computer Vision, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition (2024)

2024
[15]

Journal of Machine Learning Research 23(120), 1–39 (2022)

Fedus, W., Zoph, B., Shazeer, N.: Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. Journal of Machine Learning Research 23(120), 1–39 (2022)

2022
[16]

Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2 (2023)

Loper, M., Mahmood, N., Romero, J., et al.: Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model. Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2 (2023)

2023
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI)

Pouyan, M.B., Birjandtalab, J., Heydarzadeh, et al.: A pressure map dataset for posture and subject an alytics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI). pp. 65–68 (2017) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 15

2017
[18]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(1), 1106–1118 (2023)

Liu, S., Huang, X., Fu, N., et al.: Simultaneously collected multimodal lying pose dataset: Enabling in-bed human pose monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(1), 1106–1118 (2023)

2023
[19]

In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

Li, Z., Liu, J., Zhang, Z., et al.: Cliff: Carrying location information in full frames into human pose and shape estimation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 590–606 (2022)

2022
[20]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 770–778 (2016)

2016
[21]

In: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., et al.: Attention is all you need. In: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). pp. 6000–6010. (2017)

2017
[22]

Github (2021),https://github

Easymocap- make human motion capture easier. Github (2021),https://github. com/zju3dv/EasyMocap

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Keep it SMPL: Automatic Estimation of 3D Human Pose and Shape from a Single Image

Bogo F., Kanazawa A., Lassner C., et al.: Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3d human pose and shape from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.08128 (2016) 14 Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Zhang H., Tian Y., Zhou X., et al.: Pymaf: 3d human pose and shape regression with pyramidal mesh alignment feedback loop. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 11426-11436 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

In: Proceedings of the International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

Omran M., Lassner C., Pons-Moll G., et al.: Neural body fitting: Unifying deep learning and model based human pose and shape estimation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 484-494 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

In: P-roceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Zhao M., Liu Y., Raghu A., et al.: Through-wall human mesh recovery using radio signals. In: P-roceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 10112-10121 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Zhao M., Li T., Alsheikh M.A., et al.: Through-wall human pose estimation using radio signals. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 7356-7365 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Yan K.,Wang F.,Qian B.,et al.: Person-in-wifi 3d: End-to-end multi-person 3d pose estimation with wi-fi. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 969-978 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Wang F., Zhou S., Panev S., et al.: Person-in-wifi: Fine-grained person perception using wifi. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 5451-5460 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

In: Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT)

Wu, Z., Xie, F., Fang, Y., Liang, Z., Wan, Q., Xiong, Y., Cai, X.: Seeing through the tactile: 3d human shape estimation from temporal in-bed pressure images. In: Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT). 8(2) (2024)

work page 2024