Exploration of Force Myography and surface Electromyography in hand gesture classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas pressure sensors increasingly have received attention as a non-invasive interface for hand gesture recognition, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated. This work examined the performance of hand gesture classification using Force Myography (FMG) and surface Electromyography (sEMG) technologies by performing 3 sets of 48 hand gestures using a prototyped FMG band and an array of commercial sEMG sensors worn both on the wrist and forearm simultaneously. The results show that the FMG band achieved classification accuracies as good as the high quality, commercially available, sEMG system on both wrist and forearm positions; specifically, by only using 8 Force Sensitive Resisters (FSRs), the FMG band achieved accuracies of 91.2% and 83.5% in classifying the 48 hand gestures in cross-validation and cross-trial evaluations, which were higher than those of sEMG (84.6% and 79.1%). By using all 16 FSRs on the band, our device achieved high accuracies of 96.7% and 89.4% in cross-validation and cross-trial evaluations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".