Exploring the Impact of Machine-Learned Predictions on Feedback from an Artificial Limb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning to get by without an arm or hand can be very challenging, and existing prostheses do not yet fill the needs of individuals with amputations. One promising solution is to improve the feedback from the device to the user. Towards this end, we present a simple machine learning interface to supplement the control of a robotic limb with feedback to the user about what the limb will be experiencing in the near future. A real-time prediction learner was implemented to predict impact-related electrical load experienced by a robot limb; the learning system's predictions were then communicated to the device's user to aid in their interactions with a workspace. We tested this system with five able-bodied subjects. Each subject manipulated the robot arm while receiving different forms of vibrotactile feedback regarding the arm's contact with its workspace. Our trials showed that using machine-learned predictions as a basis for feedback led to a statistically significant improvement in task performance when compared to purely reactive feedback from the device. Our study therefore contributes initial evidence that prediction learning and machine intelligence can benefit not just control, but also feedback from an artificial limb. We expect that a greater level of acceptance and ownership can be achieved if the prosthesis itself takes an active role in transmitting learned knowledge about its state and its situation of use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".