Validation of a Selective Ensemble-Based Classification Scheme for Myoelectric Control Using a Three-Dimensional Fitts' Law Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When controlling a powered upper limb prosthesis it is important not only to know how to move the device, but also when not to move. A novel approach to pattern recognition control, using a selective multiclass one-versus-one classification scheme has been shown to be capable of rejecting unintended motions. This method was shown to outperform other popular classification schemes when presented with muscle contractions that did not correspond to desired actions. In this work, a 3-D Fitts' Law test is proposed as a suitable alternative to using virtual limb environments for evaluating real-time myoelectric control performance. The test is used to compare the selective approach to a state-of-the-art linear discriminant analysis classification based scheme. The framework is shown to obey Fitts' Law for both control schemes, producing linear regression fittings with high coefficients of determination (R(2) > 0.936). Additional performance metrics focused on quality of control are discussed and incorporated in the evaluation. Using this framework the selective classification based scheme is shown to produce significantly higher efficiency and completion rates, and significantly lower overshoot and stopping distances, with no significant difference in throughput.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".