ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osseoperceptive EMG Feedback Improves Grasp Force Control in Myoelectric Prosthetic Hands.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Invariant properties of upper limb movement trajectory control.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- A multimodal multi-label deep learning framework with temporal attention for detection of upper-limb motor activities for prosthetic control.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and assessment of vibrotactile feedback from the embedded sensors of a microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Effects of game design characteristics of a virtual reality serious game for upper-limb prosthesis control training on motor learning.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Application of EMG feedback for hand prosthesis control in high-level amputation: a case study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Wrist speed feedback improves elbow compensation and reaching accuracy for myoelectric transradial prosthesis users in hybrid virtual reaching task.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Substitutive proprioception feedback of a prosthetic wrist by electrotactile stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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
Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed-loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigates and compares the performance of EMG and force feedback in the presence of control disturbances. Twenty able-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed delicate and power grasps with a prosthesis in a functional task, while the control signal gain was temporarily increased (high-gain disturbance) or decreased (low-gain disturbance) without their knowledge. Three outcome measures were considered: the percentage of trials successful in the first attempt (reaction to disturbance), the average number of attempts in trials where the wrong force was initially applied (adaptation to disturbance), and the average completion time of the last attempt in every trial. EMG feedback was shown to offer significantly better performance compared to force feedback during power grasping in terms of reaction to disturbance and completion time. During power grasping with high-gain disturbance, the median first-attempt success rate was significantly higher with EMG feedback (73.3%) compared to that achieved with force feedback (60%). Moreover, the median completion time for power grasps with low-gain disturbance was significantly longer with force feedback than with EMG feedback (3.64 against 2.48 s, an increase of 32%). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference between feedback types with regards to adaptation to disturbances and the two feedback types performed similarly in delicate grasps. The results indicated that EMG feedback displayed better performance than force feedback in the presence of control disturbances, further demonstrating the potential of this approach to provide a reliable prosthesis-user interaction.
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.