Design and Preliminary Performance Assessment of a Wearable Tremor Suppression Glove
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 25% of individualsliving with parkinsonian tremor do not respond to traditional treatments. Wearable tremor suppression devices (WTSD) provide an alternative approach, however, tremor in the fingers has not been given as much attention as tremor in the elbow and the wrist. Therefore, the objective of this study is to design a wearable tremor suppression glove that can suppress tremor simultaneously, but independently, in multiple hand joints without restricting the user's voluntary motion. METHODS: A WTSD was designed for managing tremor in the index finger metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, thumb MCP joint, and the wrist. The prototype was tested and assessed on a participant living with parkinsonian tremor. RESULTS: The experimental evaluation showed an overall suppression of 73.1%, 80.7%, and 85.5% in resting tremor, 70.2%, 79.5%, and 81% in postural tremor, and 60.0%, 58.7%, and 65.0% in kinetic tremor in the index finger MCP joint, the thumb MCP joint, and the wrist, respectively. CONCLUSION: This first assessment of a WTSD for people living with Parkinson's disease provides confirmation of the feasibility of the approach. The next step requires a comprehensive validation on a broader population in order to evaluate the performance of the WTSD. SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using a WTSD to manage hand and finger tremor. The device enriches the field of upper-limb tremor management, as the first WTSD for multiple joints of the hand.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".