4.7 Article

Multi-Grip Classification-Based Prosthesis Control With Two EMG-IMU Sensors

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2959243

关键词

Classification; electromyography; inertial measurement unit; myoelectric control; sensor minimization; upper-limb prosthesis

资金

  1. School of Informatics Doctoral Training Centre in Neuroinformatics and Computational Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, U.K.
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/F500386/1, EP/R004242/1]
  3. U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/F529254/1]
  4. U.K. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  5. EPSRC [EP/N023080/1, EP/R004242/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the field of upper-limb myoelectric prosthesis control, the use of statistical and machine learning methods has been long proposed as a means of enabling intuitive grip selection and actuation. Recently, this paradigm has found its way toward commercial adoption. Machine learning-based prosthesis control typically relies on the use of a large number of electrodes. Here, we propose an end-to-end strategy for multi-grip, classification-based prosthesis control using only two sensors, comprising electromyography (EMG) electrodes and inertial measurement units (IMUs). We emphasize the importance of accurately estimating posterior class probabilities and rejecting predictions made with low confidence, so as to minimize the rate of unintended prosthesis activations. To that end, we propose a confidence-based error rejection strategy using grip-specific thresholds. We evaluate the efficacy of the proposed system with real-time pick and place experiments using a commercial multi-articulated prosthetic hand and involving 12 able-bodied and two transradial (i.e., below-elbow) amputee participants. Results promise the potential for deploying intuitive, classification-based multi-grip control in existing upper-limb prosthetic systems subject to small modifications.

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

4.7
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