Evaluating Internal Model Strength and Performance of Myoelectric Prosthesis Control Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-going developments in myoelectric prosthesis control have provided prosthesis users with an assortment of control strategies that vary in reliability and performance. Many studies have focused on improving performance by providing feedback to the user but have overlooked the effect of this feedback on internal model development, which is key to improve long-term performance. In this paper, the strength of internal models developed for two commonly used myoelectric control strategies: raw control with raw feedback (using a regression-based approach) and filtered control with filtered feedback (using a classifier-based approach), were evaluated using two psychometric measures: trial-by-trial adaptation and just-noticeable difference. The performance of both strategies was also evaluated using Schmidt's style target acquisition task. Results obtained from 24 able-bodied subjects showed that although filtered control with filtered feedback had better short-term performance in path efficiency ( ), raw control with raw feedback resulted in stronger internal model development ( ), which may lead to better long-term performance. Despite inherent noise in the control signals of the regression controller, these findings suggest that rich feedback associated with regression control may be used to improve human understanding of the myoelectric control system.
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".