ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Effects of Training and Calibration Data on Surface Electromyogram-Based Recognition for Upper Limb Amputees.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Mapping Method of Human Arm Motion Based on Surface Electromyography Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surface electromyogram (sEMG)-based gesture recognition has emerged as a promising avenue for developing intelligent prostheses for upper limb amputees. However, the temporal variations in sEMG have rendered recognition models less efficient than anticipated. By using cross-session calibration and increasing the amount of training data, it is possible to reduce these variations. The impact of varying the amount of calibration and training data on gesture recognition performance for amputees is still unknown. To assess these effects, we present four datasets for the evaluation of calibration data and examine the impact of the amount of training data on benchmark performance. Two amputees who had undergone amputations years prior were recruited, and seven sessions of data were collected for analysis from each of them. Ninapro DB6, a publicly available database containing data from ten healthy subjects across ten sessions, was also included in this study. The experimental results show that the calibration data improved the average accuracy by 3.03%, 6.16%, and 9.73% for the two subjects and Ninapro DB6, respectively, compared to the baseline results. Moreover, it was discovered that increasing the number of training sessions was more effective in improving accuracy than increasing the number of trials. Three potential strategies are proposed in light of these findings to enhance cross-session models further. We consider these findings to be of the utmost importance for the commercialization of intelligent prostheses, as they demonstrate the criticality of gathering calibration and cross-session training data, while also offering effective strategies to maximize the utilization of the entire dataset.
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.