ArticleWearable technologies2025
Learning dynamics of muscle synergies during non-biomimetic control maps.
Article in Wearable technologies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Advanced myoelectric prostheses feature multiple degrees of freedom (DoFs) and sophisticated control algorithms that interpret user motor intentions as commands. While enhancing their capability to assist users in a wide range of daily activities, these control solutions still pose challenges. Among them, the need for extensive learning periods and users' limited control proficiency. To investigate the relationship between these challenges and the limited alignment of such methods with human motor control strategies, we examine motor learning processes in two different control maps testing a synergistic myoelectric system. In particular, this work employs a DoF-wise synergies control algorithm tested in both intuitive and non-intuitive control mappings. Intuitive mapping aligns body movements with control actions to replicate natural limb control, whereas non-intuitive mapping (or non-biomimetic) lacks a direct correlation between aspects, allowing one body movement to influence multiple DoFs. The latter offers increased design flexibility through redundancy, which can be especially advantageous for individuals with motor disabilities. The study evaluates the effectiveness and learning process of both control mappings with 10 able-bodied participants. The results revealed distinct patterns observed while testing the two maps. Furthermore, muscle synergies exhibited greater stability and distinction by the end of the experiment, indicative of varied learning processes.
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.