ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Outdoor Walking Classification Based on Inertial Measurement Unit and Foot Pressure Sensor Data.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Navigating surfaces during walking can alter gait patterns. This study aims to develop tools for automatic walking condition classification using inertial measurement unit (IMU) and foot pressure sensors. We compared sensor modalities (IMUs on lower-limbs, IMUs on feet, IMUs on the pelvis, pressure insoles, and IMUs on the feet or pelvis combined with pressure insoles) and evaluated whether gait cycle segmentation improves performance compared to a sliding window. (2) Methods: Twenty participants performed flat, stairs up, stairs down, slope up, and slope down walking trials while fitted with IMUs and pressure insoles. Machine learning (ML; Extreme Gradient Boosting) and deep learning (DL; Convolutional Neural Network + Long Short-Term Memory) models were trained to classify these conditions. (3) Results: Overall, a DL model using lower-limb IMUs processed with gait segmentation performed the best (F1=0.89). Models trained with IMUs outperformed those trained on pressure insoles (p<0.01). Combining sensor modalities and gait segmentation improved performance for ML models (p<0.01). The best minimal model was a DL model trained on IMU pelvis + pressure insole data using sliding window segmentation (F1=0.83). (4) Conclusions: IMUs provide the most discriminative features for automatic walking condition classification. Combining sensor modalities may be helpful for some model architectures. DL models perform well without gait segmentation, making them independent of gait event identification algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.