The influence of control format and hand design in single axis myoelectric hands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to measure the functional capabilities of a prosthesis in order to make informed decisions when prescribing a limb. OBJECTIVES: To measure the functional of a range of commercial single degree of freedom hands to act as baseline comparisons for the newer multi-axis hands. STUDY DESIGN: Form-board and self-timed tasks. METHOD: Repeated measures with a single subject using a validated assessment tool. The test measured the function of three conventional, single axis, powered hands, controlled by five different myocontroller formats. One transcarpal device was also tested. RESULTS: When controlled by the same type of two channel myoelectric controllers (proportional voluntary opening, voluntary closing) the overall functional scores were similar for all similar types of hand, with a maximum score of 94 out of 100. The smaller transcarpel hand had a score of 84. Only when a more limited single channel three state controller was used was the score much lower (81). CONCLUSION: All of the hands were of a similar design and were set in a precision grip, but the precision grip did not achieve the highest individual grip score. Additionally, while the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) score is dependent on the speed of execution of the task, the speed of the prosthesis did not have as great an impact on the score as the other variables. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides comparative data between similar designs of commercial hands. This will allow clinicians to be better informed when they prescribe a device for a user.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".