Design and Integration of an Inexpensive Wearable Mechanotactile Feedback System for Myoelectric Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the functionality of an inexpensive mechanotactile sensory feedback system for transhumeral myoelectric prostheses. We summarize the development of a tactile-integrated prosthesis, including 1) evaluation of sensors that were retrofit onto existing commercial terminal devices; 2) design of two custom mechanotactile tactors that were integrated into a socket without compromising suction suspension; 3) design of a modular controller which translated sensor input to tactor output, was wirelessly adjusted, and fit within a prosthetic forearm; and 4) evaluation of the system with a single transhumeral participant. Prosthesis functionality was demonstrated over three test sessions; the participant was able to identify tactor stimulation location and demonstrated a reduction in grasp force with the mechanotactile stimulation. This system offers an inexpensive and modular solution for integration of a mechanotactile sensory feedback system into a prosthetic socket without compromising the suction seal. These principles can be applied in future studies to investigate the direct impact of sensory feedback on tangible outcomes for prosthetic users, thereby reducing barriers to clinical translation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".