Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41103539›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2025

Approaches for retraining sEMG classifiers for upper-limb prostheses.

Tom Donnelly, Elena Seminati, Benjamin Metcalfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tom DonnellyCentre for Accountable, Responsible, and Transparent AI (ART-AI), Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Elena SeminatiCentre for Accountable, Responsible, and Transparent AI (ART-AI), Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Benjamin MetcalfeCentre for Accountable, Responsible, and Transparent AI (ART-AI), Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Abandonment rates for myoelectric upper limb prostheses can reach 44%, negatively affecting quality of life and increasing the risk of injury due to compensatory movements. Traditional myoelectric prostheses rely on conventional signal processing for the detection and classification of movement intentions, whereas machine learning offers more robust and complex control through pattern recognition. However, the non-stationary nature of surface electromyogram signals and their day-to-day variations significantly degrade the classification performance of machine learning algorithms. Although single-session classification accuracies exceeding 99% have been reported for 8-class datasets, multisession accuracies typically decrease by 23% between morning and afternoon sessions. Retraining or adaptation can mitigate this accuracy loss. Methods: This study evaluates three paradigms for retraining a machine learning-based classifier: confidence scores, nearest neighbour window assessment, and a novel signal-to-noise ratio-based approach. Results: The results show that all paradigms improve accuracy against no retraining, with the nearest neighbour and signal-to-noise ratio methods showing an average improvement 5% in accuracy over the confidence-based approach. Discussion: The effectiveness of each paradigm is assessed based on intersession accuracy across 10 sessions recorded over 5 days using the NinaPro 6 dataset.

Indexed as

hand gesture recognitioninter-session retrainingmachine learningmyoelectric prosthesessurface electromyography

Identifiers

PMID41103539
PMCPMC12521216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.