A Review of Proprioceptive Feedback Strategies for Upper-Limb Myoelectric Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper extremity prostheses have seen significant technological advances in recent years, primarily with the advent of myoelectric prostheses and other designs incorporating mechatronic elements. Although they do not replicate the functionality of the natural hand, users now have a way of communicating their movement intentions to the prosthesis. However, the lack of physiological feedback from the device to the user can hinder proper integration of the prosthesis, and can be a contributing factor in the rejection of the technology. This is why experts point out that sensory feedback is one of the main missing features of commercial prostheses. The literature surrounding the restoration of somatosensation primarily discusses strategies to emulate tactile perception, but few address proprioceptive perception, which is the ability to perceive limb position and movement. Yet, proprioception has been shown to be a crucial element in object manipulation. This article offers an in-depth look into the literature surrounding proprioceptive perception restoration strategies for users of upper limb prostheses by identifying and comparing the documented strategies in relation to the concept of an optimal sensory feedback restoration device.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".