A Modular Adjustable Transhumeral Prosthetic Socket for Evaluating Myoelectric Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel myoelectric control strategies may yield more robust, capable prostheses which improve quality of life for those affected by upper-limb loss; however, the development and translation of such strategies from an experimental setting towards daily use by persons with limb loss is a slow and costly process. Since prosthesis functionality is highly dependent on the physical interface between the user's prosthetic socket and residual limb, assessment of such controllers under realistic (noisy) environmental conditions, integrated into prosthetic sockets, and with participants with amputation is essential for obtaining representative results. Unfortunately, this step is particularly difficult as participant- and control strategy-specific prosthetic sockets must be custom-designed and manufactured. There is thus a need for a system to reduce these burdens and facilitate this crucial phase of the development pipeline. This study aims to address this gap through the design and assessment of an inexpensive and easy-to-use 3D-printed Modular-Adjustable transhumeral Prosthetic Socket (MAPS). This 3D-printed, open-source socket was developed in consultation with prosthetists and compared with a participant-specific suction socket in a single-participant case-study. We conducted mechanical and functional assessments to ensure that the developed socket enabled similar performance compared to participant-specific sockets. Both socket systems yielded similar results in mechanical and functional assessments, as well as in self-reported user feedback. The MAPS system shows promise as a research tool which catalyzes the development and deployment of novel myoelectric control strategies by better-enabling comprehensive assessment involving participants with amputations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".