MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404591999 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad94a7

Enhancing neuroprosthesis calibration: the advantage of integrating prior training over exclusive use of new data

2024· article· en· W4404591999 on OpenAlexaff
Caleb J. Thomson, Troy N. Tully, Eric S. Stone, Christian B Morrell, Erik Scheme, David J. Warren, Douglas T. Hutchinson, Gregory A. Clark, Jacob A. George

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyDirectorate for Computer and Information Science and EngineeringAdvanced Research Projects AgencyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship ProgramMeta Research
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkCalibrationKalman filterMachine learningRegressionMean squared errorPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. Neuroprostheses typically operate under supervised learning, in which a machine-learning algorithm is trained to correlate neural or myoelectric activity with an individual’s motor intent. Due to the stochastic nature of neuromyoelectric signals, algorithm performance decays over time. This decay is accelerated when attempting to regress proportional control of multiple joints in parallel, compared with the more typical classification-based pattern recognition control. To overcome this degradation, neuroprostheses and commercial myoelectric prostheses are often recalibrated and retrained frequently so that only the most recent, up-to-date data influences the algorithm performance. Here, we introduce and validate an alternative training paradigm in which training data from past calibrations is aggregated and reused in future calibrations for regression control. Approach. Using a cohort of four transradial amputees implanted with intramuscular electromyographic recording leads, we demonstrate that aggregating prior datasets improves prosthetic regression-based control in offline analyses and an online human-in-the-loop task. In offline analyses, we compared the performance of a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a modified Kalman filter (MKF) to simultaneously regress the kinematics of an eight-degree-of-freedom prosthesis. Both algorithms were trained under the traditional paradigm using a single dataset, as well as under the new paradigm using aggregated datasets from the past five or ten trainings. Main results. Dataset aggregation reduced the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of algorithm estimates for both the CNN and MKF, although the CNN saw a greater reduction in error. Further offline analyses revealed that dataset aggregation improved CNN robustness when reusing the same algorithm on subsequent test days, as indicated by a smaller increase in RMSE per day. Finally, data from an online virtual-target-touching task with one amputee showed significantly better real-time prosthetic control when using aggregated training data from just two prior datasets. Significance. Altogether, these results demonstrate that training data from past calibrations should not be discarded but, rather, should be reused in an aggregated training dataset such that the increased amount and diversity of data improve algorithm performance. More broadly, this work supports a paradigm shift for the field of neuroprostheses away from daily data recalibration for linear classification models and towards daily data aggregation for non-linear regression models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207