Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures
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
To obtain more insight into how the skill level of an upper-limb myoelectric prosthesis user is composed, the current study aimed to (1) portray prosthetic handling at different levels of description, (2) relate results of the clinical level to kinematic measures, and (3) identify specific parameters in these measures that characterize the skill level of a prosthesis user. Six experienced transradial myoelectric prosthesis users performed a clinical test (Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure [SHAP]) and two grasping tasks. Kinematic measures were end point kinematics, joint angles, grasp force control, and gaze behavior. The results of the clinical and kinematic measures were in broad agreement with each other. Participants who scored higher on the SHAP showed overall better performance on the kinematic measures. They had smaller movement times, had better grip force control, and needed less visual attention on the hand. The results showed that time was a key parameter in prosthesis use and should be one of the main focus aspects of rehabilitation. The insights from this study are useful in rehabilitation practice because they allow therapists to specifically focus on certain parameters that may result in a higher level of skill for the prosthesis 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.
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) | 0.000 | 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