Electromyography-Based Gesture Recognition: Is It Time to Change Focus From the Forearm to the Wrist?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a historical focus on prosthetics, the incorporation of electromyography (EMG) sensors into less obtrusive wearable designs has recently gained attention as a potential human–computer interaction scheme for general consumer use. Because consumers are more used to wrist-worn devices, this article presents a comprehensive and systematic investigation of the feasibility of hand gesture recognition using EMG signals recorded at the wrist. A direct comparison of signal and information quality is conducted between concurrently recorded wrist and forearm signals. Both signals were collected simultaneously from 21 subjects while they performed a selection of 17 different single-finger gestures, multifinger gestures, and wrist gestures. Wrist EMG signals yielded consistently higher ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$p< 0.05$</tex-math></inline-formula> ) signal quality metrics than forearm signals for gestures that involved fine finger movements, while maintaining comparable quality for wrist gestures. Similarly, the performance of both individual state-of-the-art EMG features and a standard feature set was found to be significantly better when using wrist signals for single and multifinger gestures, and comparable for wrist gestures. Classifiers trained and tested using wrist EMG signals achieved average accuracy levels of 92.1% for single-finger gestures, 91.2% for multifinger gestures, and 94.7% for the conventional wrist gestures. In conclusion, this article clearly demonstrates the feasibility of using wrist EMG signals for hand gesture recognition. Results highlight not only the promise of this approach, but also the viability of incorporating prior knowledge from the prosthetics field in the design of wrist-based EMG pattern 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it