MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981110271 · doi:10.1109/icorr.2013.6650435

Real-time prediction learning for the simultaneous actuation of multiple prosthetic joints

2013· article· en· W1981110271 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick M. Pilarski, Travis Dick, Richard S. Sutton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Artificial intelligenceRobotSet (abstract data type)Controller (irrigation)Control (management)Joint (building)Machine learningControl engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating learned predictions into a prosthetic control system promises to enhance multi-joint prosthesis use by amputees. In this article, we present a preliminary study of different cases where it may be beneficial to use a set of temporally extended predictions--learned and maintained in real time--within an engineered or learned prosthesis controller. Our study demonstrates the first successful combination of actor-critic reinforcement learning with real-time prediction learning. We evaluate this new approach to control learning during the myoelectric operation of a robot limb. Our results suggest that the integration of real-time prediction and control learning may speed control policy acquisition, allow unsupervised adaptation in myoelectric controllers, and facilitate synergies in highly actuated limbs. These experiments also show that temporally extended prediction learning enables anticipatory actuation, opening the way for coordinated motion in assistive robotic devices. Our work therefore provides initial evidence that realtime prediction learning is a practical way to support intuitive joint control in increasingly complex prosthetic systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207