Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Overall Architecture of DATP Model.

The DATP model consists of three core components: an OATE Input Module (Occlusion-Aware and Trend-Enhanced Input Module), a UFTA Module (Unified Feature Encoding and Temporal Alignment Module).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Structure of the Multi-Scale Perception and Adaptive Scale Weighting Module.

This figure illustrates the architecture of the multi-scale perception and adaptive scale weighting module used in the proposed DATP model.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Architecture of the Adaptive Graph Topology Modeling Network (AGTM-Net).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Comparison of existing SOTA methods.

Including T3D-CNN, MHFormer, STCFormer, and DTF with the proposed fusion model under different levels of missing joints on the MPI-INF-3DHP dataset. As the number of missing joints increases, the proposed method maintains better robustness, exhibiting the lowest MPJPE increase overall.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Comparison of SOTA Methods with 16 Missing Joints per Frame on MPI-INF-3DHP Datasets Using PCK and AUC Metrics (Input Length = 81).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

AComparison of the Proposed DATP Model with Existing SOTA Methods in Terms of MPJPE for 16 Missing Joints Per Frame on the Human3.6M Datasets Using 2D CPN (Protocol 1).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison of the Proposed DATP Model with Existing SOTA Methods in Terms of MPJPE for 16 Missing Joints Per Frame on the Human3.6M Datasets Using 2D CPN (Protocol 2).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Ablation Study of Proposed DATP Architecture under Protocols 1 and 2 with 4 Random Missing 2D Joints per Frame.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparative tests between AGTM-Net and other models.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 5.

The gradient-based interpretability analysis performed on the datasets with a score of 0.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The perturbation-based interpretability analysis performed on the datasets with a score of 0.

More »

Fig 6 Expand