A multifaceted suite of metrics for comparative myoelectric prosthesis controller research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Upper limb robotic (myoelectric) prostheses are technologically advanced, but challenging to use. In response, substantial research is being done to develop user-specific prosthesis controllers that can predict a person’s intended movements. Most studies that test and compare new controllers rely on simple assessment measures such as task scores (e.g., number of objects moved across a barrier) or duration-based measures (e.g., overall task completion time). These assessment measures, however, fail to capture valuable details about: the quality of device arm movements; whether these movements match users’ intentions; the timing of specific wrist and hand control functions; and users’ opinions regarding overall device reliability and controller training requirements. In this work, we present a comprehensive and novel suite of myoelectric prosthesis control evaluation metrics that better facilitates analysis of device movement details—spanning measures of task performance, control characteristics, and user experience. As a case example of their use and research viability, we applied these metrics in real-time control experimentation. Here, eight participants without upper limb impairment compared device control offered by a deep learning-based controller (recurrent convolutional neural network-based classification with transfer learning, or RCNN-TL) to that of a commonly used controller (linear discriminant analysis, or LDA). The participants wore a simulated prosthesis and performed complex functional tasks across multiple limb positions. Analysis resulting from our suite of metrics identified 16 instances of a user-facing problem known as the “limb position effect”. We determined that RCNN-TL performed the same as or significantly better than LDA in four such problem instances. We also confirmed that transfer learning can minimize user training burden. Overall, this study contributes a multifaceted new suite of control evaluation metrics, along with a guide to their application, for use in research and testing of myoelectric controllers today, and potentially for use in broader rehabilitation technologies of the future.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".