4.6 Review

Myoelectric Control for Upper Limb Prostheses

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics8111244

关键词

myoelectric control; prosthesis; electromyography; EMG; upper limb; feature extraction; data acquisition; sampling frequency; segmentation; machine learning; classification; regression; feedback; human adaptation; co-adaptation; robustness; usability; review

资金

  1. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte (Spain) [FPU15/02870]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

State-of-the-art high-end prostheses are electro-mechanically able to provide a great variety of movements. Nevertheless, in order to functionally replace a human limb, it is essential that each movement is properly controlled. This is the goal of prosthesis control, which has become a growing research field in the last decades, with the ultimate goal of reproducing biological limb control. Therefore, exploration and development of prosthesis control are crucial to improve many aspects of an amputee's life. Nowadays, a large divergence between academia and industry has become evident in commercial systems. Although several studies propose more natural control systems with promising results, basic one degree of freedom (DoF), a control switching system is the most widely used option in industry because of simplicity, robustness and inertia. A few classification controlled prostheses have emerged in the last years but they are still a low percentage of the used ones. One of the factors that generate this situation is the lack of robustness of more advanced control algorithms in daily life activities outside of laboratory conditions. Because of this, research has shifted towards more functional prosthesis control. This work reviews the most recent literature in upper limb prosthetic control. It covers commonly used variants of possible biological inputs, its processing and translation to actual control, mostly focusing on electromyograms as well as the problems it will have to overcome in near future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据