MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023854575 · doi:10.1109/biorob.2014.6913842

Control an exoskeleton for forearm rotation using FMG

2014· article· en· W2023854575 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Gang Xiao, Ahmed M. Elnady, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForearmExoskeletonComputer scienceElectromyographyArtificial intelligenceWristSIGNAL (programming language)Rotation (mathematics)Interface (matter)SimulationComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of robotic rehabilitation, surface electromyography (sEMG) has been proposed for controlling exoskeleton device for assisting different movements of the human joints, such as the shoulder, the elbow, the wrist and the fingers. However, few works have been proposed for using sEMG to control a forearm exoskeleton for assisting the movement of pronation and supination. The main difficulty for employing the sEMG control approach is the low signal to noise ratio of the pronator and supinator muscle group. To overcome this difficulty, we propose an alternative method utilizing force myography (FMG) instead of the sEMG for controlling a forearm pronation/supination exoskeleton. An easy setup strap with an array of force sensors was developed to capture the forearm FMG signal. The FMG signal was processed and classified using the state-of-art machine learning algorithm - Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) to predict the forearm position. The prediction results can be used to control a forearm pronation/supination exoskeleton. A bilateral experiment with two protocols was designed to demonstrate one of the potential applications of the proposed system, as well as to evaluate the system performance in terms of classification accuracy. One volunteer participated in the experiment. The result shows the system was able to predict the position of the forearm using the proposed method with 98.36% and 96.19% of 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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207