Evaluation of a Wearable and Wireless Human-Computer Interface Combining Head Motion and sEMG for People with Upper-Body Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a wearable, wireless and multimodal 2-dimensional computer mouse control system is introduced for people with upper-body disabilities. The proposed human-computer interface system combines body-motion, measured using inertial measurement unit (IMU), to provide a cursor velocity and displacement control, and surface electromyography (sEMG) for target selection (left-click), using custom sensors made of electronic components of the shelf. Its functionality is demonstrated by using head motion and muscular activity detection from trapeze muscles to evaluate usability by people living with severe disabilities, congenital absence or amputation of upper-members, temporary limb traumatism, etc., preventing their utilization of tools such as mouse or keyboard. Performance using different control topologies, following the ISO/TS 9241-411:2012 standard encompassing the evaluation of physical pointing tasks, and compared to a computer mouse. On average, over the 3 participants, results show that the proposed interface can provide an index of performance of 0.18 bits/s versus 2.2 bits/s with a mouse pointer. Head motion combined with sEMG showed a 4% accuracy drop computer to the mouse while being more suitable for the severely disabled.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".