Myoelectric Control of Robotic Leg Prostheses and Exoskeletons: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Myoelectric signals from the human motor control system can improve the real-time control and neural-machine interface of robotic leg prostheses and exoskeletons for different locomotor activities (e.g., walking, sitting down, stair ascent, and non-rhythmic movements). Here we review the latest advances in myoelectric control designs and propose future directions for research and innovation. We review the different wearable sensor technologies, actuators, signal processing, and pattern recognition algorithms used for myoelectric locomotor control and intent recognition, with an emphasis on the hierarchical architectures of volitional control systems. Common mechanisms within the control architecture include 1) open-loop proportional control with fixed gains, 2) active-reactive control, 3) joint mechanical impedance control, 4) manual-tuning torque control, 5) adaptive control with varying gains, and 6) closed-loop servo actuator control. Based on our review, we recommend that future research consider using musculoskeletal modeling and machine learning algorithms to map myoelectric signals from surface electromyography (EMG) to actuator joint torques, thereby improving the automation and efficiency of next-generation EMG controllers and neural interfaces for robotic leg prostheses and exoskeletons. We also propose an example model-based adaptive impedance EMG controller including muscle and multibody system dynamics. Ongoing advances in the engineering design of myoelectric control systems have implications for both locomotor assistance and rehabilitation.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".