Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

A Powered Prosthetic Hand with Vision System for Enhancing the Anthropopathic Grasp

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a prosthetic hand can reproduce human-like grasping gestures using only an RGB-D camera, by mapping hand-object distance to finger angles through per-object polynomial gesture functions.

desk verdict A real vision-only continuous prosthetic hand controller, but the R²=0.911 'anthropomorphism' result is a servo tracking metric against the controller's own reference, not a measure of human-likeness. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07105 v1 pith:EK3GL6V2 submitted 2024-12-10 cs.RO cs.CVcs.HCcs.SYeess.SY

Yansong Xu , Xiaohui Wang , Junlin Li , Xiaoqian Zhang , Feng Li , Qing Gao , Chenglong Fu , Yuquan Leng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.HCcs.SYeess.SY
keywords prosthetichandvision-basedcontrolanthropomorphicgraspinggesturemappinghand-objectdistanceintentestimationtrajectoryregressionRGB-Dcamera
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 proposes a vision-only control method for a powered prosthetic hand that reproduces human-like grasping gestures by mapping the distance between hand and object to finger joint angles. The central claim is that this mapping, captured per object as a fourth-order polynomial gesture function $F(D)$, is enough to make a prosthetic hand trace natural human grasp motions without EMG or BCI signals. The authors report a high similarity between prosthetic and human gestures ($R^2=0.911$, $RMSE=2.47^\circ$), a 95.43% single-object grasping success rate, and 94.35% accuracy in estimating which object the user intends to grasp in a multi-object scene. They also show that their trajectory-regression intent estimator beats two vision-and-EMG baseline methods on speed and naturalness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gesture transformation function $F(D) = [F_p, F_r, F_m, F_i, F_{tb}, F_{tr}]$, a vector of fourth-order polynomials that map hand-object distance $D$ to per-finger bending angles and thumb rotation. It is constructed by detecting the hand and object in RGB-D frames, estimating a 778-vertex hand mesh, extracting the six DOF angles relative to the palm plane, and fitting a polynomial per DOF. The companion mechanism is the MTR-GIE algorithm, which regresses the wrist trajectory to a 3D line and uses a separating plane to score objects on the left side of the line, picking the closest as the intended target. Together they turn a single human demonstration into a replayable natural grasp.

What would settle it

Record healthy hand grasps of the same eight objects under varying approach directions and object orientations, then check whether the gesture function $F(D)$ fitted to one fixed-geometry demonstration still predicts the joint angles; if $R^2$ falls well below the reported 0.911 across those variations, the single-distance model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the spatial geometry of a reach-to-grasp movement — specifically the Euclidean distance $D$ between the wrist and the target object — carries enough information to determine the entire dynamic grasping gesture. The authors build gesture functions $F_j(D)$ for six finger degrees of freedom from one demonstration of a healthy hand grasping each object, store them in a scalable library, and then play them back on a six-DOF prosthetic hand guided only by an RGB-D camera. The claim extends to intent: by regressing recent wrist positions into a spatial line and selecting the nearest object on the left side of that line, the system predicts the target object while the hand is still moving, reaching 94.35% average accuracy across four object spacings. The paper positions this as the first implementation of anthropopathic (human-like in process) grasping for prostheses, arguing that continuous gesture functions are more natural than the static predefined grasps used by previous vision-based systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a human grasping gesture is fully determined by the scalar distance between the hand and the object, so the same distance-to-angle curve works regardless of object pose, approach direction, wrist orientation, or who is grasping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A prosthetic hand can perform human-like dynamic grasps using only visual input, removing the need for EMG or BCI decoding for gesture selection.
  • Grasp duration can be cut to about half that of static-gesture control methods (3.07 s versus 6.14 s and above).
  • The gesture library can scale: one demonstration per object is enough, and the same mapping principle should extend to other single-hand objects and to wrist and arm pose modeling.
  • Trajectory regression can identify the intended object before contact, enabling autonomous gesture selection in cluttered scenes.
  • The $R^2$ and $RMSE$ metrics give a concrete way to measure how closely a prosthetic hand's motion matches natural human motion during the grasp process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If scalar distance proves insufficient, a natural extension is to promote $D$ to a vector that includes approach angle and wrist orientation; the curve-fitting approach would still work with a higher-dimensional regression, suggesting the method is a special case of a more general process-based gesture encoding.
  • The intent-estimation logic assumes a right-handed user and objects lying to the left of the trajectory; mirroring the separating plane should handle left-handed use, and the same regression could be combined with gaze or object affordances to disambiguate close spacings.
  • Because the gesture functions are indexed by object category, the system inherits the object detector's confusion errors: a misclassified object will replay the wrong gesture, so intent accuracy and grasp success are upper-bounded by detection performance.
  • The reported numbers come from fixed starting positions and a fixed camera setup; deployments with varying body postures and camera motion would likely require recalibration or online adaptation of the gesture functions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a vision-only prosthetic hand system that aims to produce anthropomorphic grasping motions. The authors propose SG-GM, which maps the scalar hand-object distance D to six finger joint angles through per-object fourth-order polynomial gesture functions F(D) fitted from healthy-hand grasp demonstrations, and MTR-GIE, a wrist-trajectory regression algorithm for estimating the intended object in multi-object scenes. The system was implemented on a six-DOF Inspire prosthetic hand with a head-mounted Intel RealSense D455 camera and evaluated by grasping eight daily objects. The reported headline results are a grasping-process similarity coefficient R2=0.911, RMSE=2.47 degrees, a 95.43% success rate for single-object grasping, a 3.07 s average grasp duration, and a 94.35% average intent-estimation accuracy in multi-object experiments. A comparative study against three baseline control methods is included in Section V.

Significance. If the claims were valid, the integrated vision-only pipeline would be a practically useful contribution to prosthetic hand control, particularly the MTR-GIE intent-estimation module and the use of human demonstrations to generate continuous reference trajectories. The system is real and the experiments are extensive for a prototype: eight objects, seven participants, multiple trials per condition, and ablations through comparison with static and vision-based myoelectric baselines. The MTR-GIE algorithm is simple and could be a plausible alternative to gaze- or depth-based intent estimation. However, the central anthropomorphism claim is currently supported only by a metric that is circular, and the distance-only gesture model has untested generalization limits. The paper's value will depend on whether the authors can re-establish the anthropomorphism claim with an independent metric or clearly reframe the R2 result as a tracking-precision result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C and Supplementary Eq. (11)] The 'level of anthropomorphism' R2 is computed as the similarity between the actual finger angles α and the hand gesture function F(D). But F(D) is exactly the reference function used to command the prosthetic hand during grasping (Section II-B2). Therefore this R2 measures how accurately the servo loop tracks its own reference, not how similar the resulting gestures are to human grasping. The comparison in Fig. 6 is a comparison of the prosthetic motion against a curve that was itself deployed as the control signal. In addition, Supplementary Eq. (11) is misprinted: the denominator is written as the sum of (F_j(D_k) - F_j(D_k))^2, which is identically zero, and the text mentions the mean angle ᾱ but that quantity does not appear in the equation. The authors should recompute the anthropomorphism metric against held-out human demonstration data (for example, leave-one-participant-out or leave-one-trial-out cross-validation) and report the corresponding R2 and RMSE, or explicitly relabel the current metric as a tracking-tracking precision and avoid the term 'anthropomorphism.'
  2. [Section IV-B, Fig. 6, and Table II] The comparison in Table II and Fig. 6 uses the same self-referential R2 for all methods. The baseline methods (Static-MC, Hand-VMC, Head-VMC) are not designed to track the SG-GM polynomial F(D); their low or negative R2 values therefore reflect mismatch to the SG-GM reference, not a demonstrated lack of anthropomorphism. The footnote in Table II stating 'R2 < 0 indicates that the actual motion angles of a prosthetic hand are completely deviated from natural hand gestures' is also incorrect: R2 < 0 simply means the predictor is worse than a constant mean predictor. If the authors keep the R2 comparison, they must apply the same independent human-likeness metric to all methods, or they must present the comparison as one of tracking fidelity to the SG-GM reference rather than as a comparison of naturalness.
  3. [Section II-A3 and Eq. (2)] The load-bearing modeling assumption is that the scalar hand-object distance D fully determines the six-DOF gesture trajectory F(D), independent of object pose, approach direction, wrist orientation, and user style. The gesture functions were fit under a fixed experimental setup: the hand starts on the table at a 0.45 m horizontal distance from the object center (Section III), and each library entry corresponds to one demonstrated grasp pattern. No experiment varies object pose, approach direction, or user style, and the authors' own conclusion (Section VI) lists object pose as future work. This assumption must be explicitly stated as a limitation in the method section and ideally tested, for example by recording grasps with different approach directions and checking whether the fitted F(D) still explains the variance of the measured joint angles.
  4. [Section III and Section IV-B] The gesture function F(D) is constructed from human hand grasping data, but the manuscript does not specify how many demonstrations are used for fitting versus how many are used for evaluating the prosthetic hand. Section III says that each participant performed 20 repetitions per object to evaluate the duration of human grasping, while Section V-B mentions 'one grasping demonstration' for building the gesture model. If the same demonstration that generated F(D) also produced the human reference curves in Fig. 6, the comparison is not independent. Please clarify the exact split between fitting and evaluation data, and report per-object and per-DOF R2 and RMSE values with confidence intervals or standard deviations, as is done for the duration and success-rate metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. (12)] The equation for RMSE is incomplete: the square root symbol is followed by '1/n sum_k' but the summand is missing the closing parenthesis, and the notation 'X j' appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section II-B1] The sentence 'where p where p = [ xp, yp, zp, 1]T' contains a duplicated phrase; the second 'where p' should be removed.
  3. [Section V-B vs Section III] Section V-B states that the gesture model is built from 'one grasping demonstration', while Section III says the participants performed 20 repetitions per object. Please clarify whether the library entry for each object uses one demonstration or an average over several, because this affects the overfitting risk and the interpretation of the R2 values.
  4. [References] Reference [25] cites 'Embodied hands: Modeling and capturing hands and bodies together' with arXiv:2201.02610, which does not match the well-known MANO paper (Romero et al., 2017, ACM TOG). Please verify and correct the citation.
  5. [General terminology] The paper alternates between 'anthropopathic' and 'anthropomorphic'. Since 'anthropopathic' is nonstandard in this context, consider using 'anthropomorphic' consistently and defining what is meant by it (e.g., kinematic similarity to a human grasp trajectory).
  6. [Supplementary Table III] The supplementary comparison of grasping durations across different studies should include a caution that the numbers are not directly comparable because the objects, hand-object distances, prosthetic hardware (number of DOFs, number of grasp patterns), and the exact actions timed differ across studies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The R²=0.911 'anthropomorphism' result compares prosthetic angles to F(D), the same function that commands the hand, so it is a tracking self-comparison rather than an independent measure of human-like grasping.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C (Assessment criteria) and Section II-B2 (Grasping stage); Supplementary Eq. (11)]
    "Level of anthropomorphism (R2 and RM SE): The similarity between the actual finger angles α during grasping and the hand gesture function F (D) is evaluated using the determination coefficient R2 and the root mean square error RM SE[30]. [...] the corresponding gesture function F (D) from the gesture model library is invoked based on the spatial distance D between the object and the hand. This function provides the gesture angles α = [αp, αr, αm, αi, αtb, αtr]."

    The 'level of anthropomorphism' is defined as agreement between the measured prosthetic finger angles α and the hand gesture function F(D). But F(D) is exactly the reference function used to command the prosthetic hand's angles in the grasping stage. Therefore R²=0.911 and RMSE=2.47° quantify how well the prosthetic hand tracks its own commanded trajectory, not how natural the motion is relative to an independent human-likeness standard. Because the evaluation metric and the control input are the same function, the headline anthropomorphism claim reduces by construction to a servo-tracking self-comparison; any controller that tracks its reference well would score high regardless of whether the resulting motion is human-like.

full rationale

The central anthropomorphism claim is partially circular: the control module commands the prosthetic hand using F(D), and the evaluation defines anthropomorphism as similarity to F(D), so the reported R² and RMSE are tracking metrics against the hand's own reference. The denominator in Supplementary Eq. (11) is also mis-printed as (F_j(D_k) − F_j(D_k))², which would be identically zero, further undermining the metric as reported. That said, F(D) itself is learned from human grasping demonstrations, so tracking it has some meaningful content, and the success rate (95.43%), intent-estimation accuracy (94.35%), and duration comparisons are independent, externally meaningful results. No load-bearing self-citation chain is evident, and the comparative baselines are external. Hence the paper has real independent content, but the headline 'anthropomorphism' number is a fitted-input/self-definitional metric rather than a validated measure of human-likeness.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The gesture model relies on several strong assumptions about the structure of human reaching and grasping. The polynomial gesture functions are fitted to a single demonstration per object, so the entire gesture library depends on the adequacy of that demonstration. The MTR-GIE intent estimator assumes straight-line wrist motion and a consistent left-side approach for the right hand, which may not hold across users and tasks.

free parameters (6)
  • SG-GM polynomial coefficients = a0_j...a4_j for j in {p,r,m,i,tb,tr}, per object
    Each gesture function F_j(D) is a 4th-order polynomial in hand-object distance D, fitted to human demonstration data. The coefficients encode the entire gesture model and are the main data-driven parameters.
  • Grip force threshold = 4 N
    Set by the authors as the criterion for locking finger position in the tightening stage; hand-chosen, not derived from data.
  • Angle contraction threshold = 5 degrees
    Limit for additional finger flexion during tightening; hand-chosen.
  • Polynomial order = 4
    Model order for F(D); chosen a priori without reported model selection.
  • SRHandNet keypoint omission threshold = 15 (vs 5 in original)
    Hyperparameter changed to make hand detection robust to occluded fingers.
  • Minimum wrist positions for intent regression = 3
    n >= 3 points are used for line regression; the choice is not justified.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Human grasp gesture during reach is fully determined by the scalar hand-object distance D
    Eq. (2) defines D and Eq. (3) models each joint angle as F_j(D); object pose, approach direction, wrist orientation, and user style are not included. The authors acknowledge in Section VI that object pose will be studied in future work.
  • domain assumption Wrist motion during reaching is approximately a straight line
    Section II-B1: 'the motion trajectory of the wrist is approximated as a straight line in space'; used to regress the intent line.
  • domain assumption For right-hand grasping, the target object lies on the left side of the wrist trajectory and closest to it
    Section II-B1: 'participants tend to move toward the right side of the target object when grasping... the object to be grasped is located on the left side of the regression line.' This is an empirical heuristic, not a physical law.
  • domain assumption A single grasping demonstration is sufficient to build a gesture model
    Section III: 'the SG-GM method builds the gesture model with requiring the user to perform only one grasping demonstration.' No analysis of inter-trial or inter-subject variability is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Fourth-order polynomial is an adequate functional form for gesture curves
    Section II-A3, Eq. (3); no model selection or residual analysis is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Grip force threshold of 4 N guarantees object lift
    Section II-B3: threshold set to 4 N; no analysis of object weights or required forces.
  • standard math Standard vision models provide accurate object detection, hand pose, and hand shape
    The system depends on YOLOv5, SRHandNet, IntagHand, and MANO (refs [22], [23], [24], [25]); no validation of their accuracy in this setup is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Powered Prosthetic Hand with Vision System for Enhancing the Anthropopathic Grasp." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EK3GL6V2

@misc{pith2026241207105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Powered Prosthetic Hand with Vision System for Enhancing the Anthropopathic Grasp},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EK3GL6V2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07105}
}
abstract

The anthropomorphism of grasping process significantly benefits the experience and grasping efficiency of prosthetic hand wearers. Currently, prosthetic hands controlled by signals such as brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and electromyography (EMG) face difficulties in precisely recognizing the amputees' grasping gestures and executing anthropomorphic grasp processes. Although prosthetic hands equipped with vision systems enables the objects' feature recognition, they lack perception of human grasping intention. Therefore, this paper explores the estimation of grasping gestures solely through visual data to accomplish anthropopathic grasping control and the determination of grasping intention within a multi-object environment. To address this, we propose the Spatial Geometry-based Gesture Mapping (SG-GM) method, which constructs gesture functions based on the geometric features of the human hand grasping processes. It's subsequently implemented on the prosthetic hand. Furthermore, we propose the Motion Trajectory Regression-based Grasping Intent Estimation (MTR-GIE) algorithm. This algorithm predicts pre-grasping object utilizing regression prediction and prior spatial segmentation estimation derived from the prosthetic hand's position and trajectory. The experiments were conducted to grasp 8 common daily objects including cup, fork, etc. The experimental results presented a similarity coefficient $R^{2}$ of grasping process of 0.911, a Root Mean Squared Error ($RMSE$) of 2.47\degree, a success rate of grasping of 95.43$\%$, and an average duration of grasping process of 3.07$\pm$0.41 s. Furthermore, grasping experiments in a multi-object environment were conducted. The average accuracy of intent estimation reached 94.35$\%$. Our methodologies offer a groundbreaking approach to enhance the prosthetic hand's functionality and provides valuable insights for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the intelligent prosthetic hand system. (a) Diagram A represents the workflow chart of the dynamic grasping gesture modeling module. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of the SG-GM method. In the object detection and 3D reconstruction part as presented in sub-diagram A, the process consists of 2D object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of the MTR-GIE algorithm for estimating grasping intent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Grasping gesture of participants for constructing the library of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Grasping objects of the prosthetic hand. (a) Single-object scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of grasping gestures between the prosthetic hand and human hand. The solid lines present the motion curves of each DOF of the human [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy of intent estimation with different object spacing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Success rate of grasping objects. (a) Success rate of grasping the 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Direct-sense brain–computer interfaces and wearable computers,

    C.-T. Lin and T.-T. N. Do, “Direct-sense brain–computer interfaces and wearable computers,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 298–312, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Review of machine learning techniques for eeg based brain computer interface,

    S. Aggarwal and N. Chugh, “Review of machine learning techniques for eeg based brain computer interface,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 3001–3020, 2022. 11

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Vector autoregressive hierarchical hidden markov models for extracting finger movements using multichannel surface emg signals,

    N. Male ˇsevi´c, D. Markovi ´c, G. Kanitz, M. Controzzi, C. Cipriani, and C. Antfolk, “Vector autoregressive hierarchical hidden markov models for extracting finger movements using multichannel surface emg signals,” Complexity, vol. 2018, no. 1, p. 9728264, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Learning non- euclidean representations with spd manifold for myoelectric pattern recognition,

    D. Xiong, D. Zhang, X. Zhao, Y . Chu, and Y . Zhao, “Learning non- euclidean representations with spd manifold for myoelectric pattern recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 1514–1524, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Novel approach for electromyography-controlled prostheses based on facial action,

    X. Zhang, R. Li, H. Li, Z. Lu, Y . Hu, and A. B. Alhassan, “Novel approach for electromyography-controlled prostheses based on facial action,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing , vol. 58, pp. 2685–2698, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    An approach for brain-controlled prostheses based on scene graph steady-state visual evoked potentials,

    R. Li, X. Zhang, H. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Lu, and J. Chen, “An approach for brain-controlled prostheses based on scene graph steady-state visual evoked potentials,” Brain Research, vol. 1692, pp. 142–153, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    2020 international brain–computer interface competition: A review,

    J.-H. Jeong, J.-H. Cho, Y .-E. Lee, S.-H. Lee, G.-H. Shin, Y .-S. Kweon, J. d. R. Mill ´an, K.-R. M ¨uller, and S.-W. Lee, “2020 international brain–computer interface competition: A review,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 16, p. 898300, 2022

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Common spatial pattern reformulated for regularizations in brain– computer interfaces,

    B. Wang, C. M. Wong, Z. Kang, F. Liu, C. Shui, F. Wan, and C. P. Chen, “Common spatial pattern reformulated for regularizations in brain– computer interfaces,” IEEE transactions on cybernetics , vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 5008–5020, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Myoelectric control of prosthetic hands: state-of-the-art review,

    P. Geethanjali, “Myoelectric control of prosthetic hands: state-of-the-art review,” Medical Devices: Evidence and Research , vol. 9, pp. 247– 255, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.2147/MDER.S91102

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Electromyogram (emg) based fingers movement recognition using sparse filtering of wavelet packet coeffi- cients,

    S. Bhagwat and P. Mukherji, “Electromyogram (emg) based fingers movement recognition using sparse filtering of wavelet packet coeffi- cients,” S¯adhan¯a, vol. 45, p. 3, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Surface electromyography signal recognition based on deep learning for human-robot interaction and collaboration,

    N. Mendes, “Surface electromyography signal recognition based on deep learning for human-robot interaction and collaboration,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 105, no. 2, p. 42, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Improving hand gesture recognition robustness to dynamic posture variations by multimodal deep feature fusion,

    J. Li, B. Zhang, W. Chen, C. Bu, Y . Zhao, and X. Zhao, “Improving hand gesture recognition robustness to dynamic posture variations by multimodal deep feature fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    On the develop- ment of intrinsically-actuated, multisensory dexterous robotic hands,

    H. Liu, D. Yang, S. Fan, and H. Cai, “On the develop- ment of intrinsically-actuated, multisensory dexterous robotic hands,” ROBOMECH Journal, vol. 3, p. 4, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Ultrasound as a neurorobotic interface: A review,

    X. Yang, C. Castellini, D. Farina, and H. Liu, “Ultrasound as a neurorobotic interface: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3534–3546, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Object classification and grasp planning using visual and tactile sensing,

    F. Sun, C. Liu, W. Huang, and J. Zhang, “Object classification and grasp planning using visual and tactile sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 969–979, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Sensor fusion and computer vision for context-aware control of a multi degree-of-freedom prosthesis,

    M. Markovic, S. Dosen, D. Popovic, B. Graimann, and D. Farina, “Sensor fusion and computer vision for context-aware control of a multi degree-of-freedom prosthesis,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 12, no. 6, p. 066022, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Semi-autonomous control of prosthetic hands based on multimodal sensing, human grasp demonstration and user intention,

    J. Starke, P. Weiner, M. Crell, and T. Asfour, “Semi-autonomous control of prosthetic hands based on multimodal sensing, human grasp demonstration and user intention,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 154, p. 104123, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Continuous semi-autonomous prosthesis control using a depth sensor on the hand,

    M. N. Castro and S. Dosen, “Continuous semi-autonomous prosthesis control using a depth sensor on the hand,” Frontiers in Neurorobotics , vol. 16, p. 814973, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Im- proving automatic control of upper-limb prosthesis wrists using gaze- centered eye tracking and deep learning,

    M. Karrenbach, D. Boe, A. Sie, R. Bennett, and E. Rombokas, “Im- proving automatic control of upper-limb prosthesis wrists using gaze- centered eye tracking and deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 30, pp. 340–349, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Mul- timodal fusion of emg and vision for human grasp intent inference in prosthetic hand control,

    M. Zandigohar, M. Han, M. Sharif, S. Y . G ¨unay, M. P. Furmanek, M. Yarossi, P. Bonato, C. Onal, T. Padır, D. Erdo ˘gmus ¸et al. , “Mul- timodal fusion of emg and vision for human grasp intent inference in prosthetic hand control,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 11, p. 1...

    2024

  13. [21]

    I-gsi: A novel grasp switching interface based on eye-tracking and augmented reality for multi-grasp prosthetic hands,

    C. Shi, D. Yang, S. Qiu, and J. Zhao, “I-gsi: A novel grasp switching interface based on eye-tracking and augmented reality for multi-grasp prosthetic hands,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1619–1626, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    ultralytics/yolov5: v7.0 - YOLOv5 SOTA Realtime Instance Segmentation,

    Ultralytics, “ultralytics/yolov5: v7.0 - YOLOv5 SOTA Realtime Instance Segmentation,” https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5.com, 2022, accessed: 7th May, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.7347926

    2022

  15. [23]

    Srhandnet: Real-time 2d hand pose estimation with simultaneous region localization,

    Y . Wang, B. Zhang, and C. Peng, “Srhandnet: Real-time 2d hand pose estimation with simultaneous region localization,” IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 29, pp. 2977–2986, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Interacting attention graph for single image two-hand reconstruction,

    M. Li, L. An, H. Zhang, L. Wu, F. Chen, T. Yu, and Y . Liu, “Interacting attention graph for single image two-hand reconstruction,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 2751–2760

    2022

  17. [25]

    Embodied hands: Mod- eling and capturing hands and bodies together,

    J. Romero, D. Tzionas, and M. J. Black, “Embodied hands: Mod- eling and capturing hands and bodies together,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02610, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects,

    Y . Hasson, G. Varol, D. Tzionas, I. Kalevatykh, M. J. Black, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Learning joint reconstruction of hands and manipulated objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 11 799–11 808

    2019

  19. [27]

    Smpl: a skinned multi-person linear model,

    M. Loper, N. Mahmood, J. Romero, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black, “Smpl: a skinned multi-person linear model,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 34, no. 6, Oct. 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2816795.2818013

    2015

  20. [28]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. ACM , vol. 24, no. 6, p. 381–395, Jun. 1981. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/358669.358692

    1981

  21. [29]

    Method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,” in Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures , vol. 1611. Spie, 1992, pp. 586–606

    1992

  22. [30]

    The coefficient of determi- nation r-squared is more informative than smape, mae, mape, mse and rmse in regression analysis evaluation,

    D. Chicco, M. J. Warrens, and G. Jurman, “The coefficient of determi- nation r-squared is more informative than smape, mae, mape, mse and rmse in regression analysis evaluation,” Peerj computer science , vol. 7, p. e623, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Gesture recognition using surface elec- tromyography and deep learning for prostheses hand: state-of-the-art, challenges, and future,

    W. Li, P. Shi, and H. Yu, “Gesture recognition using surface elec- tromyography and deep learning for prostheses hand: state-of-the-art, challenges, and future,” Frontiers in neuroscience , vol. 15, p. 621885, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    A review of myoelectric control for prosthetic hand manipulation,

    Z. Chen, H. Min, D. Wang, Z. Xia, F. Sun, and B. Fang, “A review of myoelectric control for prosthetic hand manipulation,” Biomimetics, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 328, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Cognitive vision system for control of dexterous prosthetic hands: experimental evaluation,

    S. Do ˇsen, C. Cipriani, M. Kosti ´c, M. Controzzi, M. C. Carrozza, and D. B. Popovi ´c, “Cognitive vision system for control of dexterous prosthetic hands: experimental evaluation,” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, vol. 7, p. 42, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    A hybrid 3d printed hand prosthesis prototype based on semg and a fully embedded computer vision system,

    M. C. F. Castro, W. C. Pinheiro, and G. Rigolin, “A hybrid 3d printed hand prosthesis prototype based on semg and a fully embedded computer vision system,” Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 15, p. 751282, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Vision-based assistance for myoelectric hand control,

    Y . He, R. Kubozono, O. Fukuda, N. Yamaguchi, and H. Okumura, “Vision-based assistance for myoelectric hand control,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 201 956–201 965, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Artificial perception and semiautonomous control in my- oelectric hand prostheses increases performance and decreases effort,

    J. Mouchoux, S. Carisi, S. Dosen, D. Farina, A. F. Schilling, and M. Markovic, “Artificial perception and semiautonomous control in my- oelectric hand prostheses increases performance and decreases effort,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1298–1312, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Stereovision and augmented reality for closed-loop control of grasping in hand prostheses,

    M. Markovic, S. Dosen, C. Cipriani, D. Popovic, and D. Farina, “Stereovision and augmented reality for closed-loop control of grasping in hand prostheses,” Journal of neural engineering , vol. 11, no. 4, p. 046001, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Computer vision-based grasp pattern recognition with application to myoelectric control of dexterous hand prosthesis,

    C. Shi, D. Yang, J. Zhao, and H. Liu, “Computer vision-based grasp pattern recognition with application to myoelectric control of dexterous hand prosthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabili- tation Engineering , vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2090–2099, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Semi-autonomous grasping control of prosthetic hand and wrist based on motion prior field,

    X. Shi, W. Guo, W. Xu, Z. Yang, and X. Sheng, “Semi-autonomous grasping control of prosthetic hand and wrist based on motion prior field,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Validity and impact of methods for collecting training data for myoelectric prosthetic control algorithms,

    T. N. Tully, C. J. Thomson, G. A. Clark, and J. A. George, “Validity and impact of methods for collecting training data for myoelectric prosthetic control algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Surgically implanted electrodes enable real-time finger and grasp pattern recognition for prosthetic hands,

    A. K. Vaskov, P. P. Vu, N. North, A. J. Davis, T. A. Kung, D. H. Gates, P. S. Cederna, and C. A. Chestek, “Surgically implanted electrodes enable real-time finger and grasp pattern recognition for prosthetic hands,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2841–2857, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Development and continuous control of an intelligent upper-limb neuroprosthesis for reach and grasp motions using biological signals,

    J. Huang, G. Li, H. Su, and Z. Li, “Development and continuous control of an intelligent upper-limb neuroprosthesis for reach and grasp motions using biological signals,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 3431–3441, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove,

    S. Sundaram, P. Kellnhofer, Y . Li, J.-Y . Zhu, A. Torralba, and W. Ma- tusik, “Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove,” Nature, vol. 569, no. 7758, pp. 698–702, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Learning to grasp familiar objects based on experience and objects’ shape affordance,

    C. Liu, B. Fang, F. Sun, X. Li, and W. Huang, “Learning to grasp familiar objects based on experience and objects’ shape affordance,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 2710–2723, 2019. 12

    2019

  37. [45]

    Study on intention recognition and sensory feedback: control of robotic prosthetic hand through emg classification and proprioceptive feedback using rule- based haptic device,

    H. Cha, S. An, S. Choi, S. Yang, S. Park, and S. Park, “Study on intention recognition and sensory feedback: control of robotic prosthetic hand through emg classification and proprioceptive feedback using rule- based haptic device,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 15, no. ...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Design and experimental evaluation of a sensorimotor-inspired grasping strategy for dexterous prosthetic hands,

    T. Zhang, N. Zhang, Y . Li, B. Zeng, and L. Jiang, “Design and experimental evaluation of a sensorimotor-inspired grasping strategy for dexterous prosthetic hands,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , vol. 31, pp. 738–748, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    A machine learning-assisted multifunctional tactile sensor for smart prosthetics,

    Y . Li, L. Yang, S. Deng, H. Huang, Y . Wang, Z. Xiong, S. Feng, S. Wang, T. Li, and T. Zhang, “A machine learning-assisted multifunctional tactile sensor for smart prosthetics,” InfoMat, vol. 5, no. 9, p. e12463, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Designing prosthetic hands with embodied intelligence: The kit prosthetic hands,

    P. Weiner, J. Starke, S. Rader, F. Hundhausen, and T. Asfour, “Designing prosthetic hands with embodied intelligence: The kit prosthetic hands,” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 16, p. 815716, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Reliable vision-based grasping target recognition for upper limb prostheses,

    B. Zhong, H. Huang, and E. Lobaton, “Reliable vision-based grasping target recognition for upper limb prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1750–1762, 2020. 13 – Supplementary Material – A Powered Prosthetic Hand with Vision System for Enhancing th...

    2020

  42. [50]

    Duration of grasping process The duration of grasping process evaluates the time spent for grasping objects Tp of the prosthetic hand, and makes comparison with the duration of grasping process of human Th

  43. [51]

    Level of anthropomorphism The similarity between the actual finger angles α during grasping and the hand gesture function F (D) is evaluated using the determination coefficient R2 and the root mean square error RM SE[30]. The equations for the determination coefficient R2 j an...

  44. [52]

    Accuracy of intent estimation This criterion represents the accuracy Acc of the system’s intent estimation in multi-object conditions. It is calculated via the following equation: Acc = tis ttotal × 100%, (15) where tis is the number of successful intent estimations under diff...

  45. [53]

    Success rate of grasping This criterion indicates the probability of the prosthetic hand successfully grasping an object and is calculated as: Suc = tgs ttotal × 100%, (16) where tgs is the number of successful grasping actions under a specified condition. Since successful int...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.