Spatiotemporal Coupling of Hand and Eye Movements When Using a Myoelectric Prosthetic Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb prosthesis users have disruptions in hand-eye coordination, with increased fixations towards the hand and less visual allocation for feedforward planning. The purpose of this study was to explore whether improved motor planning, as reflected by eye gaze behaviour, was associated with more efficient hand movement patterns. Able-bodied participants wore a simulated prosthesis while performing a functional object movement task. Motion and eye tracking data were collected to quantify the eye gaze and hand movement during object interaction. The results of this study demonstrated that the latency of the eye to precede the hand at pick-up was correlated with measures of hand function, including hand variability, movement units, and grasp time, but not reach time. During transport and release, longer latency to disengage gaze from the grasped object and look ahead towards the target was correlated to hand kinematics of hand variability, distance travelled, and transport time. In addition, the latency of the eye to disengage the drop-off location was correlated to release time. Together these may point to control issues with opening and closing the prosthetic hand. Overall, increased feedforward fixations towards the target and reduced feedback fixations towards the hand were related to improved measures of hand function. Hence, coordination between eye and hand movements when using a myoelectric prosthesis may prove to be a useful metric to assess motor planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".