Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dexterous hand movement is possible due to closed loop control dependent on efferent motor output and afferent sensory feedback. This control strategy is significantly altered in those with upper limb amputation as sensations of touch and movement are inherently lost. For upper limb prosthetic users, the absence of sensory feedback impedes efficient use of the prosthesis and is highlighted as a major factor contributing to user rejection of myoelectric prostheses. Numerous sensory feedback systems have been proposed in literature to address this gap in prosthetic control; however, these systems have yet to be implemented for long term use. Methodologies for communicating prosthetic grasp and touch information are reviewed, including discussion of selected designs and test results. With a focus on clinical and translational challenges, this review highlights and compares techniques employed to provide amputees with sensory feedback. Additionally, promising future directions are discussed and highlighted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it