SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Systematic Review of Sensor Fusion Methods Using Peripheral Bio-Signals for Human Intention Decoding.
Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sowing Depth Monitoring System for High-Speed Precision Planters Based on Multi-Sensor Data Fusion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Multimodal Bracelet to Acquire Muscular Activity and Gyroscopic Data to Study Sensor Fusion for Intent Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enabling Remote Responder Bio-Signal Monitoring in a Cooperative Human-Robot Architecture for Search and Rescue.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans learn about the environment by interacting with it. With an increasing use of computer and virtual applications as well as robotic and prosthetic devices, there is a need for intuitive interfaces that allow the user to have an embodied interaction with the devices they are controlling. Muscle-machine interfaces can provide an intuitive solution by decoding human intentions utilizing myoelectric activations. There are several different methods that can be utilized to develop MuMIs, such as electromyography, ultrasonography, mechanomyography, and near-infrared spectroscopy. In this paper, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different myography methods by reviewing myography fusion methods. In a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, we identify and analyze studies that employ the fusion of different sensors and myography techniques, while also considering interface wearability. We also explore the properties of different fusion techniques in decoding user intentions. The fusion of electromyography, ultrasonography, mechanomyography, and near-infrared spectroscopy as well as other sensing such as inertial measurement units and optical sensing methods has been of continuous interest over the last decade with the main focus decoding the user intention for the upper limb. From the systematic review, it can be concluded that the fusion of two or more myography methods leads to a better performance for the decoding of a user's intention. Furthermore, promising sensor fusion techniques for different applications were also identified based on the existing literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.