Transcranial direct current stimulation versus user training on improving online myoelectric control for amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and user training (UT) are two types of methods to improve myoelectric control performance for amputees. In this study, we compared the independent effect between tDCS and UT, and investigated the combined effect of tDCS and UT. APPROACH: An online paradigm of simultaneous and proportional control (SPC) based on electromyography (EMG) was adopted. The proposed experiments were conducted on six naïve unilateral trans-radial amputees. The subjects each received three types of 20 min interventions: active tDCS with motor training (tDCS + UT), active tDCS with quiet sitting (tDCS), and sham tDCS with motor training (UT). The interventions were applied at one week intervals in a randomized order. The subjects performed online control of a feedback arrow with two degrees of freedom (DoFs) to accomplish target reaching motor tasks in pre-sessions and post-sessions. We compared the performance, measured by completion rate, completion time, and efficiency coefficient, between pre-sessions and post-sessions. MAIN RESULTS: The results showed that the intervention tDCS + UT and tDCS significantly improved the online SPC performance (i.e. improved the completion rate; reduced the completion time; and improved the efficiency coefficient), while intervention UT did not significantly change the performance. The results also showed that the online SPC performance after intervention tDCS + UT and tDCS was not significantly different, but both were significantly better than that after intervention UT. SIGNIFICANCE: tDCS could be an effective intervention to improve the online SPC performance in a short time.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".