A Framework and Call to Action for the Future Development of EMG-Based Input in HCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromyography (EMG) has been explored as an HCI input modality following a long history of success for prosthesis control. While EMG has the potential to address a range of hands-free interaction needs, it has yet to be widely accepted outside of prosthetics due to a perceived lack of robustness and intuitiveness. To understand how EMG input systems can be better designed, we sampled the ACM digital library to identify limitations in the approaches taken. Leveraging these works in combination with our research group’s extensive interdisciplinary experience in this field, four themes emerged (1) interaction design, (2) model design, (3) system evaluation, and (4) reproducibility. Using these themes, we provide a step-by-step framework for designing EMG-based input systems to strengthen the foundation on which EMG-based interactions are built. Additionally, we provide a call-to-action for researchers to unlock the hidden potential of EMG as a widely applicable and highly usable input modality.
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 | 0.070 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".