ArticleScientific reports2024
Application of EMG feedback for hand prosthesis control in high-level amputation: a case study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osseoperceptive EMG Feedback Improves Grasp Force Control in Myoelectric Prosthetic Hands.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- A deep learning framework for finger motion recognition using forearm ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
EMG feedback improves force control of a myoelectric hand prosthesis by conveying the magnitude of the myoelectric signal back to the users via tactile stimulation. The present study aimed to test if this method can be used by a participant with a high-level amputation, and whose muscle used for prosthesis control (pectoralis major) was not intuitively related to hand function. Vibrotactile feedback was delivered to the participant's torso, while the control was tested using EMG from three different muscles. The participant completed four experimental sessions of a force-matching task with a prosthesis. The performance was evaluated by computing the target force success rate. The results of session 1 showed that the participant could effectively employ EMG feedback after only brief training. Session 2 demonstrated that EMG feedback benefited force control, increasing the success rate by approx. 30%. Finally, after proper training (sessions 3 and 4), the participant's performance when using the muscle on the amputated side was similar to that achieved with the muscles on the contralateral side. Overall, the study results indicate that EMG feedback can be used in high-level amputations, despite the extent of the injury and non-intuitive control.
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.