Multiday Evaluation of Techniques for EMG-Based Classification of Hand Motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, most of the adopted myoelectric schemes for upper limb prostheses do not provide users with intuitive control. Higher accuracies have been reported using different classification algorithms but investigation on the reliability over time for these methods is very limited. In this study, we compared for the first time the longitudinal performance of selected state-of-the-art techniques for electromyography (EMG) based classification of hand motions. Experiments were conducted on ten able-bodied and six transradial amputees for seven continuous days. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), and decision trees (TREE) were compared. Comparative analysis showed that the ANN attained highest classification accuracy followed by LDA. Three-way repeated ANOVA test showed a significant difference (P < 0.001) between EMG types (surface, intramuscular, and combined), days (1-7), classifiers, and their interactions. Performance on the last day was significantly better (P < 0.05) than the first day for all classifiers and EMG types. Within-day, classification error (WCE) across all subject and days in ANN was: surface (9.12 ± 7.38%), intramuscular (11.86 ± 7.84%), and combined (6.11 ± 7.46%). The between-day analysis in a leave-one-day-out fashion showed that the ANN was the optimal classifier (surface (21.88 ± 4.14%), intramuscular (29.33 ± 2.58%), and combined (14.37 ± 3.10%). Results indicate that within day performances of classifiers may be similar but over time, it may lead to a substantially different outcome. Furthermore, training ANN on multiple days might allow capturing time-dependent variability in the EMG signals and thus minimizing the necessity for daily system recalibration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".