Evaluation of Myoelectric Control Learning Using Multi-Session Game-Based Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While training is critical for ensuring initial success as well as continued adoption of a myoelectric powered prosthesis, relatively little is known about the amount of training that is necessary. In previous studies, participants have completed only a small number of sessions, leaving doubt about whether the findings necessarily generalize to a longer-term clinical training program. Furthermore, a heavy emphasis has been placed on a functional prosthesis use when assessing the effectiveness of myoelectric training. Although well-motivated, this all-inclusive approach may obscure more subtle improvements made in underlying muscle control that could lead to tangible benefits. In this paper, a deeper exploration of the effects of myoelectric training was performed by following the progress of 30 participants as they completed a series of ten 30-min training sessions over multiple days. The progress was assessed using a newly developed set of metrics that was specifically designed to quantify the aspects of muscle control that are foundational to the strong myoelectric prosthesis use. It was determined that, while myoelectric training can lead to improvements in muscle control, these improvements may take longer than previously considered, even occurring after improvements in the training game itself. These results suggest the need to reconsider how and when transfer from training activities is assessed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".