Sensory Feedback by Direct Neural Stimulation Improves Amputee Prediction of Object Slip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostheses are becoming more advanced and biomimetic with time, providing additional capabilities to their users. However, prosthetic sensation lags far behind its natural limb counterpart, limiting the use of sensory feedback in prosthetic motion planning and execution. Without actionable sensation, prostheses may never meet the functional requirements to match biological performance. We propose an approach for upper-limb prosthetic object slip prediction and notification, delivered to the wearer through direct nerve stimulation. The method is based on sensory synthesis, training a linear regression of the sensors embedded in a prosthetic hand to predict slip before it occurs. Four participants with transhumeral amputation performed block pulling tasks against increasing resistance, attempting to pull the block as far as possible without slip. These trials were performed with two different prediction notification paradigms. At lower grasp forces, spike notification stimulation reduced the incidence of object slip by 32%, and at higher grasp forces, the maximum achieved pull forces increased by 19% across participants when provided with stimulation proportional to the likelihood of a predicted slip. These results suggest that this approach may be effective in recreating a lost sense of grip stability in the missing limb and may reduce unanticipated slips.
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) | 0.002 | 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".