A characterization of the effect of limb position on EMG features to guide the development of effective prosthetic control schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromyogram (EMG) pattern recognition has long been used for the control of upper limb prostheses. More recently, it has been shown that variability induced during functional use, such as changes in limb position and dynamic contractions, can have a substantial impact on the robustness of EMG pattern recognition. This work further investigates the reasons for pattern recognition performance degradation due to the limb position variation. The main focus is on the impact of limb position variation on features of the EMG, as measured using separability and repeatability metrics. The results show that when the limb is moved to a position different from the one in which the classifier is trained, both the separability and repeatability of the data decrease. It is shown how two previously proposed classification methods, multiple position training and dual-stage classification, resolve the position effect problem to some extent through increasing either separability or repeatability but not both. A hybrid classification method which exhibits a compromise between separability and repeatability is proposed in this work. It is shown that, when tested with the limb in 16 different positions, this method increases classification accuracy from an average of 70% (single position training) to 89% (hybrid approach). This hybrid method significantly (p<;0.05) outperforms multiple position training (an average of 86%) and dual-stage classification (an average of 85%).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".