Investigation of Regression Methods for Reduction of Errors Caused by Bending of FSR-Based Pressure Sensing Systems Used for Prosthetic Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressure map at the interface of a prosthetic socket and a residual limb contains information that can be used in various prosthetic applications including prosthetic control and prosthetic fitting. The interface pressure is often obtained using force sensitive resistors (FSRs). However, as reported by multiple studies, accuracies of the FSR-based pressure sensing systems decrease when sensors are bent to be positioned on a limb. This study proposes the use of regression-based methods for sensor calibration to address this problem. A sensor matrix was placed in a pressure chamber as the pressure was increased and decreased in a cyclic manner. Sensors' responses were assessed when the matrix was placed on a flat surface or on one of five curved surfaces with various curvatures. Three regression algorithms, namely linear regression (LR), general regression neural network (GRNN), and random forest (RF), were assessed. GRNN was selected due to its performance. Various error compensation methods using GRNN were investigated and compared to improve instability of sensors' responses. All methods showed improvements in results compared to the baseline. Developing a different model for each of the curvatures yielded the best results. This study proved the feasibility of using regression-based error compensation methods to improve the accuracy of mapping sensor readings to pressure values. This can improve the overall accuracy of FSR-based sensory systems used in prosthetic applications.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".