Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 443

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determining the Optimal Window Length for Pattern Recognition-Based Myoelectric Control: Balancing the Competing Effects of Classification Error and Controller Delay

Open access
Smith, Lauren H., Hargrove, Levi J., Lock, Blair A., Kuiken, Todd A.·2011·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Pattern recognition-based control of myoelectric prostheses has shown great promise in research environments, but has not been optimized for use in a clinical setting. To explore the relationship between classification error, controller delay, and real-time controllability, 13 able-bodied subjects were trained to operate a virtual upper-limb prosthesis using pattern recognition of electromyogram (EMG) signals. Classification error and controller delay were varied by training different classifiers with a variety of analysis window lengths ranging from 50 to 550 ms and either two or four EMG input channels. Offline analysis showed that classification error decreased with longer window lengths (p < 0.01 ). Real-time controllability was evaluated with the target achievement control (TAC) test, which prompted users to maneuver the virtual prosthesis into various target postures. The results indicated that user performance improved with lower classification error (p < 0.01 ) and was reduced with longer controller delay (p < 0.01 ), as determined by the window length. Therefore, both of these effects should be considered when choosing a window length; it may be beneficial to increase the window length if this results in a reduced classification error, despite the corresponding increase in controller delay. For the system employed in this study, the optimal window length was found to be between 150 and 250 ms, which is within acceptable controller delays for conventional multistate amplitude controllers.

Overview

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/tnsre.2010.2100828

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 443

Metadata

Authors
Smith, L. H., Hargrove, L. J., Lock, B. A., & Kuiken, T. A.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2011-04
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
186-192
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2148268262
Cited by
443
References
2
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determining the Optimal Window Length for Pattern Recognition-Based Myoelectric Control: Balancing the Competing Effects of Classification Error and Controller Delay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tnsre.2010.2100828
The paper
Smith, L. H., Hargrove, L. J., Lock, B. A., & Kuiken, T. A. (2011). Determining the Optimal Window Length for Pattern Recognition-Based Myoelectric Control: Balancing the Competing Effects of Classification Error and Controller Delay. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2010.2100828

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.