ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Surface EMG Statistical and Performance Analysis of Targeted-Muscle-Reinnervated (TMR) Transhumeral Prosthesis Users in Home and Laboratory Settings.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The neurophysiology of sensorimotor prosthetic control.BMC biomedical engineering · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A pattern-recognition (PR)-based myoelectric control system is the trend of future prostheses development. Compared with conventional prosthetic control systems, PR-based control systems provide high dexterity, with many studies achieving >95% accuracy in the last two decades. However, most research studies have been conducted in the laboratory. There is limited research investigating how EMG signals are acquired when users operate PR-based systems in their home and community environments. This study compares the statistical properties of surface electromyography (sEMG) signals used to calibrate prostheses and quantifies the quality of calibration sEMG data through separability indices, repeatability indices, and correlation coefficients in home and laboratory settings. The results demonstrate no significant differences in classification performance between home and laboratory environments in within-calibration classification error (home: 6.33 ± 2.13%, laboratory: 7.57 ± 3.44%). However, between-calibration classification errors (home: 40.61 ± 9.19%, laboratory: 44.98 ± 12.15%) were statistically different. Furthermore, the difference in all statistical properties of sEMG signals is significant (p < 0.05). Separability indices reveal that motion classes are more diverse in the home setting. In summary, differences in sEMG signals generated between home and laboratory only affect between-calibration performance.
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.