Human-in-the-Loop Weight Compensation in Upper Limb Wearable Robots Towards Total Muscles’ Effort Minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper: (1) We present a novel human-in-the-loop adaptation method for whole arm muscles’ effort minimization by means of weight compensation in the face of an object with an unknown mass. (2) This adaptation rule can also be used as a cognitive model for the identification of mass value using EMG sensors. (3) This adaptation rule utilizes the activation (myoelectric) signal of only four muscles in the upper limb to minimize the whole muscles’ effort. We analytically discuss the stability, optimality, and convergence of the proposed method. The effectiveness of this method for whole muscles’ effort reduction is studied by simulations (OpenSim software) on a generic and realistic model of the human arm, a model with 7-DOF and 50 Hill-type-muscles. The simulation results show the presented method’s performance and applicability for weight compensation and mass estimation in upper limb assistive robots. In addition, the simulations in OpenSim completely support that the suggested set of mono-articular muscles are sufficient for whole muscles’ effort reduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".