Tread: A Visuo-Inertial Framework for Terrain and Locomotion Context-Aware Gait-Phase and Speed Estimation in Wearable Robotics
Organizations: Human Centred Robotics and Cybernetics Group, CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur 713209, India
Abstract
A wearable assistive robot must continuously estimate terrain, locomotion mode, gait phase, and walking speed. These quantities are commonly addressed by separate, terrain-specific models, with datasets rarely collected under a common protocol. This paper presents a visuo-inertial framework that connects these estimates through a causal pipeline using a chest-mounted camera and four lower-limb inertial measurement units (IMUs). Anticipatory Terrain Perception (ATP) classifies incoming terrain with 96.3% accuracy and anticipates terrain transitions by 1.46 s on average. Terrain-Aware Locomotion Mode Identification (TALMI) achieves 93.7% and 98.8% accuracy for its level-ground and stairs experts respectively, with mean transition latencies being below 200 ms. The relevant TALMI posterior is retained as a Probabilistic Locomotion Context (PLC) vector and provided to a shared Gait Kinematic Encoder (GKE), which supports 50-Hz bilateral gait-phase estimation and 2-Hz walking-speed estimation. Leave-one-subject-out evaluation yields gait-phase RMSEs of 1.75%, 2.97%, and 4.55% for level walking, stair ascent, and stair descent respectively while estimating speed over 3.5-5.5 km/h with a RMSE of 0.218 km/h. All inertial sensing based models use sensor-fused Euler angles as input rather than raw accelerometer and gyroscope signals, reducing dependence on sensor mounting variation.
Figures & tables
| Work (year) | Sensing | Inertial signals | Terrain | Locomotion modes | Gait phase | Speed | Context coupling | Indicative result |
| Laschowski et al. [ 2 ] (2022) | RGB vision | – | 12 classes | – | – | – | Perception only | Best 12-class test accuracy: 73.2% |
| Tricomi et al. [ 3 ] (2023) | RGB vision + 2 IMU | acc, gyro | LG, SA, SD | – | Continuous | – | Deterministic switch | Per-class accuracy 85% |
| Tricomi et al. [ 4 ] (2025) | RGB vision (geometric) | acc, gyro | LG, stairs | – | – | – | Geometric context | Overall terrain-detection accuracy: 93.0 1.1% |
| Qian et al. [ 7 ] (2022) | Depth vision + IMU | acc, gyro | LG, SA, SD | LG, SA, SD | Continuous | – | Predictive switch | Mode accuracy: 98% |
| Ma et al. [ 6 ] (2025) | IMU only (6) | acc, gyro | – | 5 steady + transitions | – | – | None (majority filter) | Steady-mode accuracy: 99.58% |
| Kang et al. [ 8 ] (2021) | IMU + hip encoders | acc, gyro, joint angle | – | – | Continuous | – | None (mode-agnostic) | Gait Phase RMSE: 5.04 0.79% |
| Class | Precision | Recall | F1-Score |
| LG | 0.945 | 0.953 | 0.949 |
| US | 0.967 | 0.973 | 0.970 |
| DS | 0.978 | 0.966 | 0.972 |
| Accuracy | 0.963 | ||
| Expert | Class | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
| LGLI | ST | 0.941 | 0.956 | 0.949 |
| FG | 0.985 | 0.966 | 0.976 | |
| LW | 0.954 | 0.911 | 0.932 | |
| RT | 0.772 | 0.908 | 0.835 | |
| LT | 0.797 | 0.907 | 0.848 | |
| Accuracy | 0.937 | |||
| Stage | Targeted Rate | Measured Latency (ms) |
|---|---|---|
| ATP | 30 Hz | 13.57 1.22 |
| TALMI | 10 Hz | 14.52 0.58 |
| CAGPE | 50 Hz | 15.9 0.8 |
| CAWSE | 2 Hz | 256.05 5.35 |