Abstract
A myoelectric controller should provide an intuitive and effective human-machine interface that deciphers user intent in real-time and is robust enough to operate in daily life. Many myoelectric control architectures have been developed, including pattern recognition systems, finite state machines, and more recently, postural control schemes. Here, we present a comparative study of two types of finite state machines and a postural control scheme using both virtual and physical assessment procedures with seven nondisabled subjects. The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) was used in order to compare the effectiveness of the controllers during activities of daily living using a multigrasp artificial hand. Also, a virtual hand posture matching task was used to compare the controllers when reproducing six target postures. The performance when using the postural control scheme was significantly better (p < 0.05) than the finite state machines during the physical assessment when comparing within-subject averages using the SHAP percent difference metric. The virtual assessment results described significantly greater completion rates (97% and 99%) for the finite state machines, but the movement time tended to be faster (2.7 s) for the postural control scheme. Our results substantiate that postural control schemes rival other state-of-the-art myoelectric controllers.