analiza aiqbench
This study demonstrates that cross-user models trained on large datasets can match or exceed calibrated controllers in real-time myoelectric control tasks, challenging the necessity of user-specific calibration for practical adoption. While calibrated systems showed higher offline accuracy, they did not translate to better completion rates and often produced less stable trajectories than population-based models without calibration. The findings suggest that eliminating calibration barriers could significantly improve accessibility and usability for prosthetic limb users.
Is User Calibration Still Necessary for Continuous Myoelectric Control? A Closed-Loop Comparison of Calibration-Free Controllers
arXiv:2610.24802v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The need for user-specific calibration remains an often-cited barrier to widespread adoption of myoelectric control. Cross-user models trained on large multi-user datasets can now recognize gestures from unseen users without calibration, but they have been evaluated almost exclusively offline, leaving open whether calibration is still needed in closed-loop control. This study compared six calibration-free controllers, trained on 306 users of the EMG-EPN-612 dataset and used without any calibration data from the test participant, against three calibrated controllers in a closed-loop Fitts' law target-acquisition task with sixteen participants. The calibrated controllers achieved higher offline balanced accuracy (90.6% against 73.1% for the best controller of each paradigm), but completion rates did not differ significantly between paradigms, and the highest completion rate was achieved by a calibration-free controller. Calibrated controllers moved faster on successful acquisitions, partly because of their individually fitted speed mappings, though not significantly after correction for multiple comparisons. However, every calibration-free controller produced more direct and stable trajectories than every calibrated controller, even after adjusting for cursor speed. Offline accuracy did not predict completion rate across controllers or within participants, and across paradigms higher offline accuracy was associated with poorer trajectory quality in 15 of 16 participants. Without any calibration data from the end user, a model trained across a large population matched calibrated control in completion rate and exceeded it in trajectory quality. The offline accuracy gained through calibration should therefore not be taken as evidence of a closed-loop benefit.
Title:Is User Calibration Still Necessary for Continuous Myoelectric Control? A Closed-Loop Comparison of Calibration-Free Controllers
Abstract:The need for user-specific calibration remains an often-cited barrier to widespread adoption of myoelectric control. Cross-user models trained on large multi-user datasets can now recognize gestures from unseen users without calibration, but they have been evaluated almost exclusively offline, leaving open whether calibration is still needed in closed-loop control. This study compared six calibration-free controllers, trained on 306 users of the EMG-EPN-612 dataset and used without any calibration data from the test participant, against three calibrated controllers in a closed-loop Fitts' law target-acquisition task with sixteen participants. The calibrated controllers achieved higher offline balanced accuracy (90.6% against 73.1% for the best controller of each paradigm), but completion rates did not differ significantly between paradigms, and the highest completion rate was achieved by a calibration-free controller. Calibrated controllers moved faster on successful acquisitions, partly because of their individually fitted speed mappings, though not significantly after correction for multiple comparisons. However, every calibration-free controller produced more direct and stable trajectories than every calibrated controller, even after adjusting for cursor speed. Offline accuracy did not predict completion rate across controllers or within participants, and across paradigms higher offline accuracy was associated with poorer trajectory quality in 15 of 16 participants. Without any calibration data from the end user, a model trained across a large population matched calibrated control in completion rate and exceeded it in trajectory quality. The offline accuracy gained through calibration should therefore not be taken as evidence of a closed-loop benefit.
Signal Processing (eess.SP); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.24802 [eess.SP]
(or arXiv:2610.24802v1 [eess.SP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.24802 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 354 cuvinte