Cited by 48Muscle activation and electromyography studiesProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

An Alternative Myoelectric Pattern Recognition Approach for the Control of Hand Prostheses: A Case Study of Use in Daily Life by a Dysmelia Subject

Open access
Mastinu, Enzo, Ahlberg, Johan, Lendaro, Eva, Hermansson, Liselotte, Hakansson, Bo, Ortiz-Catalan, Max·2018·IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine

Abstract

The functionality of upper limb prostheses can be improved by intuitive control strategies that use bioelectric signals measured at the stump level. One such strategy is the decoding of motor volition via myoelectric pattern recognition (MPR), which has shown promising results in controlled environments and more recently in clinical practice. Moreover, not much has been reported about daily life implementation and real-time accuracy of these decoding algorithms. This paper introduces an alternative approach in which MPR allows intuitive control of four different grips and open/close in a multifunctional prosthetic hand. We conducted a clinical proof-of-concept in activities of daily life by constructing a self-contained, MPR-controlled, transradial prosthetic system provided with a novel user interface meant to log errors during real-time operation. The system was used for five days by a unilateral dysmelia subject whose hand had never developed, and who nevertheless learned to generate patterns of myoelectric activity, reported as intuitive, for multi-functional prosthetic control. The subject was instructed to manually log errors when they occurred via the user interface mounted on the prosthesis. This allowed the collection of information about prosthesis usage and real-time classification accuracy. The assessment of capacity for myoelectric control test was used to compare the proposed approach to the conventional prosthetic control approach, direct control. Regarding the MPR approach, the subject reported a more intuitive control when selecting the different grips, but also a higher uncertainty during proportional continuous movements. This paper represents an alternative to the conventional use of MPR, and this alternative may be particularly suitable for a certain type of amputee patients. Moreover, it represents a further validation of MPR with dysmelia cases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jtehm.2018.2811458

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intuitive motor control can be attained via advanced techniques such as targeted muscle reinnervation, regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces, or myoelectric pattern recognition.

    “Intuitive motor control can be attained via the use of the advanced techniques such as targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR), regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNIs) or the use of myoelectric pattern recognition [19–21].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mastinu, E., Ahlberg, J., Lendaro, E., Hermansson, L., Hakansson, B., & Ortiz-Catalan, M.
Affiliations
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • Integrum (Sweden) (SE)
Corresponding author
Ortiz-Catalan, Max
Venue
IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine
Published
2018
Volume
6
Pages
1-12
ISSN
2168-2372 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789760074
Cited by
48
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet)
  • Stiftelsen Promobilia
  • VINNOVA
  • European Commission (H2020, DeTOP project)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
myoelectric pattern recognition, prosthetic hand, transradial amputation, dysmelia, prosthetic control, grip selection, activities of daily living, intuitive control, amputees

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review