Limb loading enhances skill transfer between augmented and physical reality tasks during limb loss rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Virtual and augmented reality (AR) have become popular modalities for training myoelectric prosthesis control with upper-limb amputees. While some systems have shown moderate success, it is unclear how well the complex motor skills learned in an AR simulation transfer to completing the same tasks in physical reality. Limb loading is a possible dimension of motor skill execution that is absent in current AR solutions that may help to increase skill transfer between the virtual and physical domains. Methods We implemented an immersive AR environment where individuals could operate a myoelectric virtual prosthesis to accomplish a variety of object relocation manipulations. Intact limb participants were separated into three groups, the load control (CGLD; $$N=4$$ N = 4 ), the AR control (CGAR; $$N=4$$ N = 4 ), and the experimental group (EG; $$N=4$$ N = 4 ). Both the CGAR and EG completed a 5-session prosthesis training protocol in AR while the CGLD performed simple muscle training. The EG attempted manipulations in AR while undergoing limb loading. The CGAR attempted the same manipulations without loading. All participants performed the same manipulations in physical reality while operating a real prosthesis pre- and post-training. The main outcome measure was the change in the number of manipulations completed during the physical reality assessments (i.e. completion rate). Secondary outcomes included movement kinematics and visuomotor behavior. Results The EG experienced a greater increase in completion rate post-training than both the CGAR and CGLD. This performance increase was accompanied by a shorter motor learning phase, the EG’s performance saturating in less sessions of AR training than the CGAR. Conclusion The results demonstrated that limb loading plays an important role in transferring complex motor skills learned in virtual spaces to their physical reality analogs. While participants who did not receive limb loading were able to receive some functional benefit from AR training, participants who received the loading experienced a greater positive change in motor performance with their performance saturating in fewer training sessions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".