跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.15966 · v1

Subject-Held-Out Evaluation of Deep Ground Reaction Force Estimators Across Two Laboratories: Leakage and Cross-Laboratory Transfer

首次提交 2026-11-12 04:05
版本更新 2026-11-12 04:05
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Deep networks that estimate ground reaction forces and centers of pressure from motion-capture markers are validated within one laboratory, in a seldom-stated coordinate frame, and sometimes with trial-level splits that put the same person in the training and the test set. We measured what each practice costs, and whether such models transfer between laboratories. Three sequence models (convolutional, convolutional-recurrent, and convolutional-transformer) were evaluated on two independent datasets, locomotion (6 subjects) and occupational patient handling (10 subjects), under one pipeline, one tuning procedure, three seeds, and four protocols: trial-level split, leave-one-subject-out, pooled two-laboratory training with matched held-out subjects, and cross-laboratory transfer. At a fixed configuration, trial-level splits overstated the subject-held-out coefficient of determination by +0.040 to +0.194; on occupational data the overstatement exceeded every difference between architectures. With subjects held out, the three models reached values between 0.583 and 0.804; the leader differed between datasets, and gaps lay within subject-to-subject variability. Pooling the laboratories changed neither dataset on matched subjects. Transfer between laboratories was below chance in both directions, including the vertical force, which no in-plane rotation can affect. Leaving force targets in the plate frame while inputs were heading-aligned cost 0.57 of locomotion anteroposterior-force explained variance, enough to make that force look hardest; a Newton's-law correlation detected the mismatch before training. Split protocol and target frame changed reported accuracy more than architecture did. Learned force estimators should be validated with subjects held out, checked for frame consistency before training, and tested across laboratories before deployment claims are made.

作者备注:15 pages (9 main + 6 supplementary), 5 figures. Submitted to IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics. Code and run outputs: https://github.com/hsantos10/Metahuman_Attention

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-12 04:05 · 最新观测版本

Subject-Held-Out Evaluation of Deep Ground Reaction Force Estimators Across Two Laboratories: Leakage and Cross-Laboratory Transfer

Deep networks that estimate ground reaction forces and centers of pressure from motion-capture markers are validated within one laboratory, in a seldom-stated coordinate frame, and sometimes with trial-level splits that put the same person in the training and the test set. We measured what each practice costs, and whether such models transfer between laboratories. Three sequence models (convolutional, convolutional-recurrent, and convolutional-transformer) were evaluated on two independent datasets, locomotion (6 subjects) and occupational patient handling (10 subjects), under one pipeline, one tuning procedure, three seeds, and four protocols: trial-level split, leave-one-subject-out, pooled two-laboratory training with matched held-out subjects, and cross-laboratory transfer. At a fixed configuration, trial-level splits overstated the subject-held-out coefficient of determination by +0.040 to +0.194; on occupational data the overstatement exceeded every difference between architectures. With subjects held out, the three models reached values between 0.583 and 0.804; the leader differed between datasets, and gaps lay within subject-to-subject variability. Pooling the laboratories changed neither dataset on matched subjects. Transfer between laboratories was below chance in both directions, including the vertical force, which no in-plane rotation can affect. Leaving force targets in the plate frame while inputs were heading-aligned cost 0.57 of locomotion anteroposterior-force explained variance, enough to make that force look hardest; a Newton's-law correlation detected the mismatch before training. Split protocol and target frame changed reported accuracy more than architecture did. Learned force estimators should be validated with subjects held out, checked for frame consistency before training, and tested across laboratories before deployment claims are made.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗