3D-Printed Conductive Thermoplastic Electromyography Electrodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the evolving landscape of assistive technologies, significant advancements are being made in the functionality of intelligent myoelectric prostheses, positioning them as a legitimate option for amputees and persons with congenital limb differences. Concurrently, 3D printing is transitioning from its traditional role as a prototyping tool to a viable, cost-effective method for manufacturing. Against this backdrop, it becomes feasible to assess the capabilities of 3D printing in fabricating intricate components, such as electrodes, which are critical for the effective operation of these prostheses. This study explores the efficacy of 3D-printed electrodes by producing and evaluating three variants of graphitedoped thermoplastic electrodes, subsequently enhanced with a layer of gold-plating. These innovative electrodes were benchmarked against five conventional electromyography (EMG) electrodes to compare their performance and characteristics. Testing with ten participants revealed that two of the three thermoplastic materials examined, PLA and TPU, exhibited real potential for electromyography applications. Notably, the application of goldplating to these thermoplastics significantly enhanced signal quality, achieving parity with the performance of traditional metal electrodes in certain cases. This investigation underscores the promising future of doped thermoplastic 3D-printed electrodes in medical applications. By enabling the production of electrodes that combine a conductive core with an insulating exterior, this technology paves the way for the creation of highly complex electrode designs. Moreover, the ability to rapidly prototype and iterate designs through 3D printing is set to revolutionize the development process of electrode arrays, offering new avenues for innovation in not only prosthetic technology, but in many other fields too.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".