Self-supervised representation learning with continuous training data improves the feel and performance of myoelectric control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pattern recognition-based myoelectric control is traditionally trained with static or ramp contractions, but this fails to capture the dynamic nature of real-world movements. This study investigated the benefits of training classifiers with continuous dynamic data, encompassing transitions between various movement classes. We employed both conventional (LDA) and deep learning (LSTM) classifiers, comparing their performance when trained with ramp data, continuous dynamic data, and an LSTM pre-trained with a self-supervised learning technique (VICReg). Twenty participants completed a Fitts' Law-inspired target acquisition test to evaluate the usability and effectiveness of each classifier. Results demonstrate that temporal models, particularly LSTMs trained with continuous dynamic data, significantly outperformed traditional approaches. Furthermore, VICReg pre-training led to additional improvements in online performance and user experience. Qualitative feedback highlighted the importance of smooth, jitter-free control and consistent performance across movement classes. These findings underscore the potential of continuous dynamic data and self-supervised learning for advancing sEMG-PR-based myoelectric control, paving the way for more intuitive and user-friendly prosthetic devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".