Resolving the Limb Position Effect in Myoelectric Pattern Recognition
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
Reported studies on pattern recognition of electromyograms (EMG) for the control of prosthetic devices traditionally focus on classification accuracy of signals recorded in a laboratory. The difference between the constrained nature in which such data are often collected and the unpredictable nature of prosthetic use is an example of the semantic gap between research findings and a viable clinical implementation. In this paper, we demonstrate that the variations in limb position associated with normal use can have a substantial impact on the robustness of EMG pattern recognition, as illustrated by an increase in average classification error from 3.8% to 18%. We propose to solve this problem by: 1) collecting EMG data and training the classifier in multiple limb positions and by 2) measuring the limb position with accelerometers. Applying these two methods to data from ten normally limbed subjects, we reduce the average classification error from 18% to 5.7% and 5.0%, respectively. Our study shows how sensor fusion (using EMG and accelerometers) may be an efficient method to mitigate the effect of limb position and improve classification accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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