MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291305254 · doi:10.1186/s12984-022-01066-8

Evaluating surface EMG control of motorized wheelchairs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients

2022· article· en· W4291305254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Albert Manero, Shea McLinden, John Sparkman, Björn Oskarsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Central Florida
KeywordsWheelchairJoystickPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisElectromyographyMedicineNeurologyPhysical therapyPsychologySimulationComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated a novel control method for patients unable to independently control powered wheelchairs. Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis often require a wheelchair but struggle with sufficient hand dexterity required for joystick control making them a population that needs this type of control method. METHODS: The study employed a novel control mechanism, using electromyography surface sensors applied to temporalis muscles able to measure the myoelectric voltage. Pattern and magnitude control of muscle contraction allowed for steering intention recognition and were used to manipulate their power wheelchair joystick. Four patients ages 51 to 69, two female and two male with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, conducted Wheelchair Skills Test developed by Dalhousie University and were surveyed on the experience's Clinical Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Findings showed independent steering was capable for patients without hand function and provided recommendations for improved human-machine interface. All patients demonstrated the ability to engage the system, with varying precision, for driving their wheelchair in a controlled environment. CONCLUSIONS: Three patients in the pilot trial reported the highest score of clinical global impression of change, all of whom had lost independent control of their wheelchair joystick. Patient four retained impaired hand dexterity for joystick control and reported negative impression of change, comparatively. Feedback from the study will be leveraged to improve training outcomes. Trial registration Subjects provided signed informed consent according to the Declaration of Helsinki to enter the study that was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board in Rochester, Minnesota. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04800926 as of March 14, 2021 retrospectively registered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207