Comparing online wrist and forearm EMG-based control using a rhythm game-inspired evaluation environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. The use of electromyogram (EMG) signals recorded from the wrist is emerging as a desirable input modality for human–machine interaction (HMI). Although forearm-based EMG has been used for decades in prosthetics, there has been comparatively little prior work evaluating the performance of wrist-based control, especially in online, user-in-the-loop studies. Furthermore, despite different motivating use cases for wrist-based control, research has mostly adopted legacy prosthesis control evaluation frameworks. Approach. Gaining inspiration from rhythm games and the Schmidt’s law speed-accuracy tradeoff, this work proposes a new temporally constrained evaluation environment with a linearly increasing difficulty to compare the online usability of wrist and forearm EMG. Compared to the more commonly used Fitts’ Law-style testing, the proposed environment may offer different insights for emerging use cases of EMG as it decouples the machine learning algorithm’s performance from proportional control, is easily generalizable to different gesture sets, and enables the extraction of a wide set of usability metrics that describe a users ability to successfully accomplish a task at a certain time with different levels of induced stress. Main results. The results suggest that wrist EMG-based control is comparable to that of forearm EMG when using traditional prosthesis control gestures and can even be better when using fine finger gestures. Additionally, the results suggest that as the difficulty of the environment increased, the online metrics and their correlation to the offline metrics decreased, highlighting the importance of evaluating myoelectric control in real-time evaluations over a range of difficulties. Significance. This work provides valuable insights into the future design and evaluation of myoelectric control systems for emerging HMI applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".