Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33579326›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

User training for machine learning controlled upper limb prostheses: a serious game approach.

Morten B Kristoffersen, Andreas W Franzke, Raoul M Bongers, Michael Wand, Alessio Murgia, Corry K van der Sluis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Morten B KristoffersenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. more-ten@protonmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3901-2856
Andreas W FranzkeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Raoul M BongersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Michael WandIDSIA, USI & SUPSI, Manno-Lugano, Switzerland.
Alessio MurgiaDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Corry K van der SluisDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUpper limb prosthetics with multiple degrees of freedom (DoFs) are still mostly operated through the clinical standard Direct Control scheme. Machine learning control, on the other hand, allows controlling multiple DoFs although it requires separable and consistent electromyogram (EMG) patterns. Whereas user training can improve EMG pattern quality, conventional training methods might limit user potential. Training with serious games might lead to higher quality EMG patterns and better functional outcomes. In this explorative study we compare outcomes of serious game training with conventional training, and machine learning control with the users' own one DoF prosthesis.

methodsParticipants with upper limb absence participated in 7 training sessions where they learned to control a 3 DoF prosthesis with two grips which was fitted. Participants received either game training or conventional training. Conventional training was based on coaching, as described in the literature. Game-based training was conducted using two games that trained EMG pattern separability and functional use. Both groups also trained functional use with the prosthesis donned. The prosthesis system was controlled using a neural network regressor. Outcome measures were EMG metrics, number of DoFs used, the spherical subset of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure and the Clothespin Relocation Test.

resultsEight participants were recruited and four completed the study. Training did not lead to consistent improvements in EMG pattern quality or functional use, but some participants improved in some metrics. No differences were observed between the groups. Participants achieved consistently better results using their own prosthesis than the machine-learning controlled prosthesis used in this study.

conclusionOur explorative study showed in a small group of participants that serious game training seems to achieve similar results as conventional training. No consistent improvements were found in either group in terms of EMG metrics or functional use, which might be due to insufficient training. This study highlights the need for more research in user training for machine learning controlled prosthetics. In addition, this study contributes with more data comparing machine learning controlled prosthetics with Direct Controlled prosthetics.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsMachine LearningAdultElectromyographyExercise TherapyFemaleHandHand StrengthHumansMaleVideo GamesEMGMachine learningMotor learningProsthesisSerious gamesStructured training

Identifiers

PMID33579326
PMCPMC7881655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.