Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

NeuroCommitSSM: Decision-Centric Shared Autonomy for Safe Assistive Manipulation via EEG-EMG-ET Commit Readiness

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Assistive-arm safety can be improved by deciding when to act, not just what to do: this paper proposes NeuroCommitSSM, a framework that learns a continuous commit-readiness score from EEG, EMG, and eye-tracking, converts it to discrete comm

desk verdict Genuinely useful decision-centric pipeline and dataset, but the headline safety numbers are measured against HSMM labels that are never independently validated — treat the false-activation claim as plausible, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15395 v1 pith:EEOHY34R submitted 2026-07-16 cs.RO

Tipu Sultan , Param Sangani , Kody Cool , Pascal Sikorski , Guangping Liu , Hadi Akbarpour , Madi Babaiasl This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords sharedautonomycommitreadinessbrain-computerinterfaceEEG-EMG-eyetrackingassistivemanipulationsensordropoutleave-one-subject-outhardware-in-the-loop
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that false activations during rest—moments when the user has no intent to act—can be suppressed by modeling the commit decision itself, rather than treating recognition confidence as a trigger. It proposes NeuroCommitSSM, which fuses EEG, EMG, and eye-tracking into a continuous readiness score in [0,1], converts it to discrete commit events via dwell and hysteresis filtering, and passes those events through a HOLD–ASSIST–COMMIT supervisor that also requires target visibility, inverse-kinematics solvability, and collision-free planning. In leave-one-subject-out tests with 32 participants and seven sensor-dropout scenarios, the authors report 0.75 false commits per 1000 rest windows at full sensing and 0.29 in the EEG-only case, versus roughly 100 for a temporal-convolutional baseline; hardware-in-the-loop replay on a robotic arm shows fewer false starts and aborts without sacrificing success. A sympathetic reader would care because this reframes assistive intent interfaces as safety-critical decision systems, with a released dataset and benchmark as supporting infrastructure.

What carries the argument

Central object: the commit-readiness score c_t in [0,1], learned from EEG–EMG–ET and supervised from onset-relative timing in ACTION windows (disabled in REST). The argument turns on how c_t becomes an event: action-gating by the predicted action probability, a two-state hysteresis filter with separate on/off thresholds and a dwell of N consecutive windows, plus reset/cool-down. The second object is the HOLD–ASSIST–COMMIT (HAC) supervisor, which combines the gated readiness with perception and robot-feasibility cues and requires stable feasibility for a dwell period before entering COMMIT, with abort on loss of feasibility. Together they turn a noisy neural signal into conservative, reversib

What would settle it

A human-labeling study on a held-out set of the recorded trials: have annotators or the participants themselves mark true REST/ACTION intervals and intended initiation moments, then recompute FP/1k REST and flaps/min against those labels. If false-commit rates rise substantially versus the HSMM-based labels, the central safety claim is an artifact of the labeling pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Core claim: when-to-act can be treated as a learnable, supervised target, not a by-product of classification confidence. NeuroCommitSSM learns a continuous readiness score from EEG–EMG–ET, action-gates it, and converts it to a discrete commit event via dwell/hysteresis; the HAC supervisor admits motion only if readiness and physical feasibility (target visible, IK solvable, collision-free) both hold. On LOSO data this gives 0.950 action balanced accuracy and 0.75 false commits per 1000 REST windows with all sensors, and 0.29 in EEG-only mode—versus 99.95 for a TCN baseline—while HIL replay on a Gen3 arm shows lower false starts and aborts at equal success.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the HSMM-derived ACTION/REST segments and onset-relative readiness targets reflect the user's true intent; the paper does not validate the labeler against human annotation or self-report, so its headline safety numbers are relative to that auto-labeler.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, assistive interfaces can suppress rest-time false commands by two orders of magnitude relative to simple threshold baselines under cross-subject and sensor-dropout conditions.
  • Feasibility gating is not just a safety add-on: in the paper's HIL ablation, adding perception and robot feasibility raised success from 40.5% (commit-only) to 97.6% (full HAC) while cutting false starts from 11.9% to 2.4%.
  • Because commit quality is measured as false commits per 1000 REST windows and state toggles per minute, the framework makes decision stability a first-class evaluation metric rather than an afterthought.
  • The released synchronized EEG–EMG–ET dataset with a balanced-window LOSO protocol gives other groups a standard way to compare intent-to-commit pipelines.
  • Low false-commit rates are not achieved by suppressing action entirely: commit coverage remains nonzero across all sensor-dropout scenarios, so safety does not come from simply never triggering.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If readiness labels ultimately derive from the same signals the model consumes (as the HSMM onset-relative supervision suggests), the reported false-commit numbers bound errors relative to the auto-labeler, not to independently verified intent; a human-annotated ground-truth study would be the natural next check.
  • The same decision structure—dwell/hysteresis on a continuous readiness score plus feasibility gating—could transfer to other intent modalities such as speech, gesture, or gaze-only interfaces, where false activation during rest is equally safety-relevant.
  • An adaptive dwell/hysteresis conditioned on real-time signal quality (the paper lists this as future work) would likely improve the responsiveness-safety trade-off; one concrete test is to lengthen dwell when EEG signal quality drops, not just when a modality disappears entirely.
  • The HIL replay method isolates the decision layer from user adaptation; the open question is whether live users, including motor-impaired populations, show the same low false-start behavior when they can adjust their behavior in response to the robot's gating.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces NeuroCommitSSM, a decision-centric framework for assistive robotic manipulation that predicts a continuous commit-readiness score from synchronized EEG, EMG, and eye-tracking, converts it to discrete commit events via dwell/hysteresis filtering, and gates execution through a three-state HOLD–ASSIST–COMMIT supervisor that also evaluates perception and robot feasibility. The method is evaluated on a newly collected 32-participant dataset of five ICF-aligned ADL tasks under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation and seven sensor-dropout scenarios, with additional hardware-in-the-loop replay experiments on a Kinova Gen3 arm. The paper claims that the framework reduces REST false activations and state flapping relative to baselines while preserving task success.

Significance. If the reported safety results are valid, the paper makes a useful contribution by modeling when to execute rather than only what to do, integrating multimodal biosignals with physical feasibility gating, and releasing a synchronized EEG–EMG–ET dataset. The evaluation is extensive (LOSO, sensor dropout, ablations, Holm-corrected paired statistics, HIL), and the public release of code, data, and videos is a clear strength. However, the safety claims rest on a label-generation pipeline that is not independently validated, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the headline false-activation numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III-A, III-D.3; Tables IV–V, VIII] The headline safety metrics (FP/1k REST in Tables IV–V, false starts in Table VIII) are computed against ACTION/REST labels produced by an HSMM labeling pipeline that consumes the same EEG, EMG, and eye-tracking features used as model inputs (Sec. III-A: 'An HSMM-based labeling pipeline generated ACTION/REST supervision labels from EEG, EMG, eye-tracking activity features, and trial-timing constraints'). Readiness supervision is also derived from onset-relative timing within ACTION windows (Sec. III-D.3). No independent validation of the HSMM labels (e.g., human annotation, video review, user self-report, or protocol-based onset times alone) is presented. Consequently, the false-activation numbers measure agreement with the automatic labeler rather than with user intent; if the labeler confuses ambient EMG or gaze shifts with REST, the safety claims do not transfer. I request either inde
  2. [Sec. III-D.3, IV; Tables IV–V] The text states that 'Validation calibrates thresholds (τon, τoff, Ndwell, Ncool) to balance time-to-commit against false commits during REST' for the proposed method, and that baselines use the same commit-event extraction, but it does not state whether baseline thresholds were also calibrated on validation (or on a matched operating point). If only NeuroCommitSSM's thresholds were tuned, the large FP differences in Tables IV–V (e.g., TCN in S4: 99.95 vs. 0.29 FP/1k REST) could be partly a calibration artifact. Please specify the calibration protocol for every baseline, including whether thresholds were selected per method on the validation split and whether any baseline was given an equivalent false-commit budget.
  3. [Table VI vs. Tables IV–V] There is a numerical inconsistency that undermines the ablation table. Table VI reports the full 'Base' model averaged over S1–S3 with FP/1k REST = 7.481±5.056 and flaps/min = 12.283±3.295, while Tables IV–V report the same model (Ours) in S1, S2, S3 with FP/1k REST = 1.23, 0.12, 0.17 (mean ~0.51) and flaps/min = 6.96, 3.06, 4.63 (mean ~4.88). These are incompatible. The discrepancy needs to be explained (e.g., different threshold calibration, different evaluation windows, or a reporting error) and the affected numbers corrected. As written, the ablation results call into question the integrity of the headline FP/1k REST figures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-B] 'MA V' appears to be a typo for 'MAV'.
  2. [Sec. IV] 'Action-balanced accuracy' is used without an explicit definition; please define it (e.g., mean of true-positive rate and true-negative rate) at first occurrence.
  3. [Sec. III-D.3] The calibration section would benefit from a concrete statement of the validation procedure and the resulting threshold values per scenario; currently it is described in one sentence.
  4. [Table VIII] The Feasibility-only row (100% false starts, 0% CV-infeasible starts) is understandable but deserves a one-sentence explanation in the text to avoid confusion.
  5. [Sec. III-E / IV] The caveat that HIL replay does not replace live human-in-the-loop testing is welcome; consider also explicitly noting the small held-out subject count (N=2) in the results section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HSMM-generated labels are external supervision, not model-defined targets; label-validity concerns are external-validity risks, not circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper reports a standard supervised-learning pipeline: an HSMM-based labeling pipeline generates ACTION/REST labels from EEG, EMG, ET activity features and trial-timing constraints, and NeuroCommitSSM is trained and evaluated against those labels. This is not circular: the labels are an input training signal, not a function of the model's own outputs, and the model is not used to define the labels. The commit-readiness target is onset-relative timing for ACTION windows near estimated onset, but that target also derives from trial timing and the HSMM segmentation, which are external to the model's parameters. The FP/1k REST, flaps/min, and HIL false-start metrics are all relative to this labeler, so if the HSMM mislabeled REST/ACTION, the headline safety numbers might not transfer to true user intent; that is a ground-truth validity/correctness concern, not a same-signal-equivalence-by-construction reduction. The paper also does not claim that its model reproduces the labeler as a derived first-principles result; it claims empirical agreement with the label set. All baselines use identical commit-event extraction, and the HAC feasibility gate is an independent robot/perception component validated via HIL replay with matched conditions. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz-smuggling citations, or fitted parameters renamed as predictions were found. Honest non-finding is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the auto-generated labels and on the calibration choices for the commit thresholds. The model itself introduces no new physical entities; the main unexamined inputs are the labeling pipeline and the threshold-fitting procedure.

free parameters (4)
  • dwell/hysteresis thresholds (τ_on, τ_off, N_dwell, N_cool) = not reported
    Calibrated on validation to balance time-to-commit against FP/1k REST (Sec. III-D.3); central to the false-commit results and may not be applied identically to baselines.
  • action gate threshold τ_gate = not reported
    Gates effective readiness by action probability (Sec. III-D.3).
  • HSMM duration priors and rest-region constraints = not reported
    Define the ACTION/REST ground-truth labels; any change alters every reported metric (Sec. III-A).
  • architecture hyperparameters (η, δ, H_min, 0.25 scale, EMG mixture weights) = η=0.10, δ=0.05, etc.
    Hand-set constants in the encoders and fusion (Sec. III-D); typical for deep models but not fitted to the safety metric.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HSMM segmentation labels (ACTION/REST and onset times) are correct ground truth for user intent.
    The whole evaluation uses these labels; no independent human annotation is provided (Sec. III-A, III-D.3).
  • domain assumption Signals from healthy adults (mean 25 years, 29 no assistive-tech experience) are representative of the target assistive population.
    All N=32 subjects are healthy; the paper defers testing with motor impairments to future work (Sec. V).
  • domain assumption LSL synchronization and preprocessing preserve the physiological signal fidelity needed for intent decoding.
    Standard practice, but no signal-quality validation against artifacts is reported (Sec. III-B).
  • standard math Standard supervised-learning assumptions (i.i.d. windows, representative LOSO folds).
    Routine methodological basis for the reported statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeuroCommitSSM: Decision-Centric Shared Autonomy for Safe Assistive Manipulation via EEG-EMG-ET Commit Readiness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEOHY34R

@misc{pith2026260715395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeuroCommitSSM: Decision-Centric Shared Autonomy for Safe Assistive Manipulation via EEG-EMG-ET Commit Readiness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEOHY34R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15395}
}
read the original abstract

We present NeuroCommitSSM, a decision-centric framework that models when to execute, not just what to do, for safe commit-to-execute control in assistive robotic manipulation. NeuroCommitSSM predicts a continuous commit-readiness score c_t in [0,1] from synchronized electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG), and eye-tracking (ET), and converts it into discrete commit events through dwell and hysteresis filtering. A three-state finite-state supervisor, HOLD-ASSIST-COMMIT (HAC), gates execution by requiring both a sustained commit-readiness signal from the neural model and real-time perception and robot-state feasibility, including target visibility, inverse kinematics solvability, and collision-free planning, before initiating motion. We evaluate the framework on N=32 subjects performing five activities of daily living (ADL) tasks aligned with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), using leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) cross-validation and seven sensor-dropout scenarios (S0-S6). NeuroCommitSSM achieves 0.950 action-balanced accuracy with 0.75 false commit events per 1000 REST windows (FP/1k REST), and maintains low false commits and stable state transitions under sensor loss. For example, in the EEG-only condition, it achieves 0.785 balanced accuracy and 0.29 FP/1k REST, whereas the Temporal Convolutional Network baseline produces 99.95 FP/1k REST under the same condition. Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) validation on a Kinova Gen3 arm shows that feasibility-checked execution reduces false starts and decision instability without sacrificing task success. Supplementary materials, including code, datasets, videos, and additional analyses, are available at https://madibabaiasl.github.io/NeuroCommitSSM/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NeuroCommitSSM overview. Left: Synchronized electroencephalogram (EEG), electromyography (EMG), and eye￾tracking (ET) signals from five International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-aligned assistive tasks. Middle: Time-aligned windows yield a continuous commit-readiness score and a HOLD/COMMIT decision, while a Robot Operating System (ROS2)/computer vision (CV) supervisor enforces action … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the intent-to-commit pipeline: (A) windowed EEG/EMG/ET with masks (acquired through iMotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NeuroCommitSSM architecture. Masked EEG/EMG/ET windows are tokenized and encoded by modality-specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A multimodal assistive-robotic-arm control system to increase indepen- dence after tetraplegia,

    T. C. Hansen, T. N. Tully, V . J. Mathews, and D. J. Warren, “A multimodal assistive-robotic-arm control system to increase indepen- dence after tetraplegia,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 32, pp. 2124–2133, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Emg-based wake gestures eliminate false activations during out-of-set activities of daily living: an online myoelectric control study,

    E. Eddy, E. Campbell, S. Bateman, and E. Scheme, “Emg-based wake gestures eliminate false activations during out-of-set activities of daily living: an online myoelectric control study,”Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 016006, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    A shared robot control system combining augmented reality and motor imagery brain–computer interfaces with eye tracking,

    A. Dillen, M. Omidi, F. Ghaffari, B. Vanderborght, B. Roelands, O. Romain, A. Now´e, and K. De Pauw, “A shared robot control system combining augmented reality and motor imagery brain–computer interfaces with eye tracking,”Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 056028, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    A hybrid emg–eeg interface for robust intention detection and fatigue-adaptive control of an elbow rehabilitation robot,

    I. B. Abdallah, Y . Bouteraa, and A. Alotaibi, “A hybrid emg–eeg interface for robust intention detection and fatigue-adaptive control of an elbow rehabilitation robot,”Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 40895, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Development of low-cost biosignal acquisition system for ecg, emg, and eog,

    M. K. Hussein, R. A. Abedraba,et al., “Development of low-cost biosignal acquisition system for ecg, emg, and eog,”Wasit Journal of Engineering Sciences, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 191–202, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Gesture classification in electromyography signals for real-time prosthetic hand control using a convolutional neural network-enhanced channel attention model,

    G. Yu, Z. Deng, Z. Bao, Y . Zhang, and B. He, “Gesture classification in electromyography signals for real-time prosthetic hand control using a convolutional neural network-enhanced channel attention model,” Bioengineering, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1324, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    When to act: Calibrated con- fidence for reliable human intention prediction in assistive robotics,

    J. A. Gaus, W. Ilg, and D. Haeufle, “When to act: Calibrated con- fidence for reliable human intention prediction in assistive robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04982, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Investigating the cortical effect of false positive feedback on motor learning in motor imagery based rehabilitative bci training,

    H. Jeong, M. Song, S.-H. Jang, and J. Kim, “Investigating the cortical effect of false positive feedback on motor learning in motor imagery based rehabilitative bci training,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 61, 2025

    2025

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Feasibility checking and constraint refinement for shared control in assistive robotics,

    S. Bustamante, I. Rodr ´ıguez, G. Quere, P. Lehner, M. Iskandar, D. Leidner, A. D ¨omel, A. Albu-Sch ¨affer, J. V ogel, and F. Stulp, “Feasibility checking and constraint refinement for shared control in assistive robotics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Casper: Inferring diverse intents for assistive teleoperation with vision language models,

    H. Liu, R. Shah, S. Liu, J. Pittenger, M. Seo, Y . Cui, Y . Bisk, R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, and Y . Zhu, “Casper: Inferring diverse intents for assistive teleoperation with vision language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14727, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,

    E. Olson, “Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 3400–3407, IEEE, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes,

    S. Hinterstoisser, V . Lepetit, S. Ilic, S. Holzer, G. Bradski, K. Konolige, and N. Navab, “Model based training, detection and pose estimation of texture-less 3d objects in heavily cluttered scenes,” inAsian conference on computer vision, pp. 548–562, Springer, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,

    B. Wen, W. Yang, J. Kautz, and S. Birchfield, “Foundationpose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 17868–17879, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Multi-object ransac: efficient plane clustering method in a clutter,

    S. Lim, Y . Yoo, J. K. Lee, and B.-T. Zhang, “Multi-object ransac: efficient plane clustering method in a clutter,” in2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3079– 3085, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    8-channel EMG, EEG upper limb gesture data,

    M. Dere, “8-channel EMG, EEG upper limb gesture data,” 2022. Version 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Data for: Enhanced EEG-EMG coherence analysis based on hand movements,

    X. Xi, “Data for: Enhanced EEG-EMG coherence analysis based on hand movements,” 2019. Version 1

    2019

  9. [17]

    An eeg- emg dataset from a standardized reaching task for biomarker research in upper limb assessment,

    F. Garro, E. Fenoglio, I. Ceroni, I. Forsiuk, M. Canepa, M. Mozzon, A. Bruschi, F. Zippo, M. Laffranchi, L. De Michieli,et al., “An eeg- emg dataset from a standardized reaching task for biomarker research in upper limb assessment,”Scientific Data, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 831, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Motor imagery data,

    B. Guo, “Motor imagery data,” 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Comparison of six electromyography acquisition setups on hand movement classification tasks,

    S. Pizzolato, L. Tagliapietra, M. Cognolato, M. Reggiani, H. M ¨uller, and M. Atzori, “Comparison of six electromyography acquisition setups on hand movement classification tasks,”PloS one, vol. 12, no. 10, p. e0186132, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Gaze, visual, myoelectric, and inertial data of grasps for intelligent prosthetics,

    M. Cognolato, A. Gijsberts, V . Gregori, G. Saetta, K. Giacomino, A.-G. M. Hager, A. Gigli, D. Faccio, C. Tiengo, F. Bassetto,et al., “Gaze, visual, myoelectric, and inertial data of grasps for intelligent prosthetics,”Scientific data, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 43, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Levels of shared autonomy in brain-robot interfaces: enabling multi-robot multi-human collaboration for activities of daily living,

    H. Douglas, M. Di Vincenzo, R. F. J. Dossa, L. Nunziante, S. Sujit, and K. Arulkumaran, “Levels of shared autonomy in brain-robot interfaces: enabling multi-robot multi-human collaboration for activities of daily living,”Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 19, p. 1718713, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Incremental learning for robot shared autonomy,

    Y . Tao, G. Qiao, D. Ding, and Z. Erickson, “Incremental learning for robot shared autonomy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06315, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sari: Shared autonomy across repeated interaction,

    A. Jonnavittula, S. A. Mehta, and D. P. Losey, “Sari: Shared autonomy across repeated interaction,”ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–36, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Robotic arm control by augmented reality-assisted object detection: J.-w. hyung et al.,

    J.-W. Hyung, W. Na, K. Won, and D.-J. Kim, “Robotic arm control by augmented reality-assisted object detection: J.-w. hyung et al.,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 35678, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Intention estimation from gaze and motion features for human-robot shared-control object manipulation,

    A. Belardinelli, A. R. Kondapally, D. Ruiken, D. Tanneberg, and T. Watabe, “Intention estimation from gaze and motion features for human-robot shared-control object manipulation,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 9806–9813,...

    2022

  18. [26]

    A scoping review of gaze and eye tracking-based control methods for assistive robotic arms,

    A. Fischer-Janzen, T. M. Wendt, and K. Van Laerhoven, “A scoping review of gaze and eye tracking-based control methods for assistive robotic arms,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 11, p. 1326670, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A hybrid bci integrating eeg and eye-tracking for assisting clinical communication in patients with disorders of consciousness,

    Z. Yi, J. Pan, Z. Chen, D. Lu, H. Cai, J. Li, and Q. Xie, “A hybrid bci integrating eeg and eye-tracking for assisting clinical communication in patients with disorders of consciousness,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A robotic arm control system with simultaneous and sequential modes combining eye-tracking with steady-state visual evoked potential in virtual reality environment,

    R. Guo, Y . Lin, X. Luo, X. Gao, and S. Zhang, “A robotic arm control system with simultaneous and sequential modes combining eye-tracking with steady-state visual evoked potential in virtual reality environment,”Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 17, p. 1146415, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Optimizing real-time mi-bci performance in post-stroke patients: impact of time window duration on classification accuracy and responsiveness,

    A. Miladinovi ´c, A. Accardo, J. Jarmolowska, U. Marusic, and M. Aj ˇcevi´c, “Optimizing real-time mi-bci performance in post-stroke patients: impact of time window duration on classification accuracy and responsiveness,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 18, p. 6125, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Devel- opment of recommendations for semg sensors and sensor placement procedures,

    H. J. Hermens, B. Freriks, C. Disselhorst-Klug, and G. Rau, “Devel- opment of recommendations for semg sensors and sensor placement procedures,”Journal of electromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 361–374, 2000

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.