Comparison of the Accuracy of Ground Reaction Force Component Estimation between Supervised Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods Using Pressure Insoles.

The three Ground Reaction Force (GRF) components can be estimated using pressure insole sensors. In this paper, we compare the accuracy of estimating GRF components for both feet using six methods: three Deep Learning (DL) methods (Artificial Neural Network, Long Short-Term Memory, and Convolutional Neural Network) and three Supervised Machine Learning (SML) methods (Least Squares, Support Vector Regression, and Random Forest (RF)). Data were collected from nine subjects across six activities: normal and slow walking, static with and without carrying a load, and two Manual Material Handling activities. This study has two main contributions: first, the estimation of GRF components (Fx, Fy, and Fz) during the six activities, two of which have never been studied; second, the comparison of the accuracy of GRF component estimation between the six methods for each activity. RF provided the most accurate estimation for static situations, with mean RMSE values of RMSE_Fx = 1.65 N, RMSE_Fy = 1.35 N, and RMSE_Fz = 7.97 N for the mean absolute values measured by the force plate (reference) RMSE_Fx = 14.10 N, RMSE_Fy = 3.83 N, and RMSE_Fz = 397.45 N. In our study, we found that RF, an SML method, surpassed the experimented DL methods.

Impact of PCA Pre-Normalization Methods on Ground Reaction Force Estimation Accuracy.

Ground reaction force (GRF) components can be estimated using insole pressure sensors. Principal component analysis in conjunction with machine learning (PCA-ML) methods are widely used for this task. PCA reduces dimensionality and requires pre-normalization. In this paper, we evaluated the impact of twelve pre-normalization methods using three PCA-ML methods on the accuracy of GRF component estimation. Accuracy was assessed using laboratory data from gold-standard force plate measurements. Data were collected from nine subjects during slow- and normal-speed walking activities. We tested the ANN (artificial neural network) and LS (least square) methods while also exploring support vector regression (SVR), a method not previously examined in the literature, to the best of our knowledge. In the context of our work, our results suggest that the same normalization method can produce the worst or the best accuracy results, depending on the ML method. For example, the body weight normalization method yields good results for PCA-ANN but the worst performance for PCA-SVR. For PCA-ANN and PCA-LS, the vector standardization normalization method is recommended. For PCA-SVR, the mean method is recommended. The final message is not to define a normalization method a priori independently of the ML method.