Real-time robustness evaluation of regression based myoelectric control against arm position change and donning/doffing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are some practical factors, such as arm position change and donning/doffing, which prevent robust myoelectric control. The objective of this study is to precisely characterize the impacts of the two representative factors on myoelectric controllability in practical control situations, thereby providing useful references that can be potentially used to find better solutions for clinically reliable myoelectric control. To this end, a real-time target acquisition task was performed by fourteen subjects including one individual with congenital upper-limb deficiency, where the impacts of arm position change, donning/doffing and a combination of both factors on control performance was systematically evaluated. The changes in online performance were examined with seven different performance metrics to comprehensively evaluate various aspects of myoelectric controllability. As a result, arm position change significantly affects offline prediction accuracy, but not online control performance due to real-time feedback, thereby showing no significant correlation between offline and online performance. Donning/doffing was still problematic in online control conditions. It was further observed that no benefit was attained when using a control model trained with multiple position data in terms of arm position change, and the degree of electrode shift caused by donning/doffing was not severely associated with the degree of performance loss under practical conditions (around 1 cm electrode shift). Since this study is the first to concurrently investigate the impacts of arm position change and donning/doffing in practical myoelectric control situations, all findings of this study provide new insights into robust myoelectric control with respect to arm position change and donning/doffing.
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".