Wearable EMG-Based Gesture Recognition Systems During Activities of Daily Living: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in wearable technologies have increased the potential for practical gesture recognition systems using electromyogram (EMG) signals. However, despite the high classification accuracies reported in many studies (> 90%), there is a gap between academic results and industrial success. This is in part because state-of-the-art EMG-based gesture recognition systems are commonly evaluated in highly-controlled laboratory environments, where users are assumed to be resting and performing one of a closed set of target gestures. In real world conditions, however, a variety of non-target gestures are performed during activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in many false positive activations. In this study, the effect of ADLs on the performance of EMG-based gesture recognition using a wearable EMG device was investigated. EMG data for 14 hand and finger gestures, as well as continuous activity during uncontrolled ADLs (>10 hours in total) were collected and analyzed. Results showed that (1) the cluster separability of 14 different gestures during ADLs was 171 times worse than during rest; (2) the probability distributions of EMG features extracted from different ADLs were significantly different (p <; 0.05). (3) of the 14 target gestures, a right angle gesture (extension of the thumb and index finger) was least often inadvertently activated during ADLs. These results suggest that ADLs and other non-trained gestures must be taken into consideration when designing EMG-based gesture recognition systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".