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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A robust, real-time control scheme for multifunction myoelectric control
Englehart, K., & Hudgins, B. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2003.813539 · Cited by 1,743
Graupe, D., Salahi, J., & Kohn, K. H. (1982) · Journal of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1016/0141-5425(82)90021-8 · Cited by 205
Cited by
Surface EMG-Based Inter-Session Gesture Recognition Enhanced by Deep Domain Adaptation
Du, Y., Jin, W., Wei, W., Hu, Y., & Geng, W. (2017) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s17030458 · Cited by 363
Parajuli, N., Sreenivasan, N., Bifulco, P., Cesarelli, M., Savino, S., Niola, V., Esposito, D., Hamilton, T. J., Naik, G. R., Gunawardana, U., et al. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19204596 · Cited by 332
Classification of Simultaneous Movements Using Surface EMG Pattern Recognition
Young, A. J., Smith, L. H., Rouse, E. J., & Hargrove, L. J. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2012.2232293 · Cited by 320
Self-citationYoung, A. J., Hargrove, L. J., & Kuiken, T. A. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2159216 · Cited by 287
Self-citationA survey of sensor fusion methods in wearable robotics
Novak, D., & Riener, R. (2015) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2014.08.012 · Cited by 252
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.