Evaluating the Feasibility of EMG-Based Human–Machine Interfaces for Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of electromyography (EMG)-based human-machine interfaces (HMIs) for high-demand activities such as driving based on performance, cognitive workload, usability, and safety measures.BackgroundUpper-limb amputees face challenges in performing everyday tasks, including driving. EMG-based HMIs offer potential solutions, particularly for wrist disarticulated and trans-radial amputee, but their effectiveness in complex tasks like driving requires further investigation.MethodNineteen able-bodied participants completed a driving simulation study using an EMG-based HMI, dominant hand, and both hands. Participants performed various driving maneuvers including straight lane driving, overtaking, and 90-degree turns at intersections. Driver performance, cognitive workload (measured by blink rate and subjective measures), usability (USE questionnaire), and safety were assessed.ResultsUsing the EMG-based HMI led to higher lane offset and steering angle compared to conventional methods, but demonstrated lower steering entropy in some situations. Cognitive workload was higher for EMG-based HMI, while usability scores were lower. Safety measures were mixed, with EMG-based HMI showing better performance at intersections but lower lane offset and steering angle safety scores overall.ConclusionThe study highlights both limitations and opportunities presented by EMG-based HMIs in high-demand tasks such as driving. While the system exhibited lower performance in some conditions, it demonstrated potential for controlled driving, particularly during specific maneuvers. The higher cognitive workload and lower usability scores indicate areas for improvement.ApplicationThe findings provide valuable insights for the development of more effective EMG-based HMIs, supporting future research and clinical trials aimed at enhancing mobility and independence for individuals with upper-limb amputations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".