The Influence of Training With Visual Biofeedback on the Predictability of Myoelectric Control Usability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have shown that closed-loop myoelectric control schemes can lead to changes in user performance and behavior compared to open-loop systems. When users are placed within the control loop, such as during real-time use, they must correct for errors made by the controller and learn what behavior is necessary to produce desired outcomes. Augmented feedback, consequently, has been used to incorporate the user throughout the training process and to facilitate learning. This work explores the effect of visual feedback presented during user training on both the performance and predictability of a myoelectric classification-based control system. Our results suggest that properly designed feedback mechanisms and training tasks can influence the quality of the training data and the ability to predict usability using linear combinations of metrics derived from feature space. Furthermore, our results confirm that the most common in-lab training protocol, screen guided training, may yield training data that are less representative of online use than training protocols that incorporate the user in the loop. These results suggest that training protocols should be designed that better parallel the testing environment to more effectively prepare both the algorithms and users for real-time control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".