Assessing workload in using electromyography (EMG)-based prostheses

Abstract

Using prosthetic devices requires a substantial cognitive workload. This study investigated classification models for assessing cognitive workload in electromyography (EMG)-based prosthetic devices with various types of input features including eye-tracking measures, task performance, and cognitive performance model (CPM) outcomes. Features selection algorithm, hyperparameter tuning with grid search, and k-fold cross-validation were applied to select the most important features and find the optimal models. Classification accuracy, the area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F1 scores were calculated to compare the models’ performance. The findings suggested that task performance measures, pupillometry data, and CPM outcomes, combined with the naïve bayes (NB) and random forest (RF) algorithms, are most promising for classifying cognitive workload. The proposed algorithms can help manufacturers/clinicians predict the cognitive workload of future EMG-based prosthetic devices in early design phases.

Practitioner summary: This study investigated the use of machine learning algorithms for classifying the cognitive workload of prosthetic devices. The findings suggested that the models could predict workload with high accuracy and low computational cost and could be used in assessing the usability of prosthetic devices in the early phases of the design process.

Abbreviations: 3d: 3 dimensional; ADL: Activities for daily living; ANN: Artificial neural network; AUC: Area under the receiver operation characteristic curve; CC: Continuous control; CPM: Cognitive performance model; CPM-GOMS: Cognitive-Perceptual-Motor GOMS; CRT: Clothespin relocation test; CV: Cross validation; CW: Cognitive workload; DC: Direct control; DOF: Degrees of freedom; ECRL: Extensor carpi radialis longus; ED: Extensor digitorum; EEG: Electroencephalogram; EMG: Electromyography; FCR: Flexor carpi radialis; FD: Flexor digitorum; GOMS: Goals, Operations, Methods, and Selection Rules; LDA: Linear discriminant analysis; MAV: Mean absolute value; MCP: Metacarpophalangeal; ML: Machine learning; NASA-TLX: NASA task load index; NB: Naïve Bayes; PCPS: Percent change in pupil size; PPT: Purdue Pegboard Test; PR: Pattern recognition; PROS-TLX: Prosthesis task load index; RF: Random forest; RFE: Recursive feature selection; SHAP: Southampton hand assessment protocol; SFS: Sequential feature selection; SVC: Support vector classifier

Keywords:

• Mental workload
• prosthesis
• classification
• machine learning

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation (No. IIS-1856676/1856441/1900044). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.