Investigation of Channel Selection for Gesture Classification for Prosthesis Control Using Force Myography: A Case Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
-Background Various human machine interfaces (HMIs) are used to control prostheses such as robotic hands. One of the promising HMIs is Force Myography (FMG). Previous research has shown the potential for the use of high density FMG (HD-FMG) that can lead to higher accuracy of prosthesis control. -Motivation The more sensors used in an FMG controlled system, the more complicated and costlier the system becomes. This study proposes a design method that can produce powered prostheses with performance comparable to that of HD-FMG controlled systems using a fewer number of sensors. An HD-FMG apparatus would be used to collect information from the user only in the design phase. Channel selection would then be applied to the collected data to determine the number and location of sensors that are vital to performance of the device. This study assessed the use of multiple channel selection (CS) methods for this purpose. -Methods In this case study, three datasets were used. These datasets were collected from force sensitive resistors embedded in the inner socket of a subject with transradial amputation. Sensor data were collected as the subject carried out five repetitions of six gestures. Collected data were then used to asses five CS methods: Sequential forward selection (SFS) with two different stopping criteria, minimum redundancy-maximum relevance (mRMR), genetic algorithm (GA), and Boruta. -Results Three out of the five methods (mRMR, GA, and Boruta) were able to decrease channel numbers significantly while maintaining classification accuracy in all datasets. Neither of them outperformed the other two in all datasets. However, GA resulted in the smallest channel subset in all three of the datasets. The three selected methods were also compared in terms of stability (i.e. consistency of the channel subset chosen by the method as new training data were introduced or some training data were removed (Chandrashekar and Sahin, 2014)). Boruta and mRMR resulted in less instability compared to GA when applied to the datasets of this study. -Conclusion This study shows feasibility of using the proposed design method that can produce prosthetic systems that are simpler than HD-FMG systems but have performance comparable to theirs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».