ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2026
Locomotion Decoding (
Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Locomotion Decoding (Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2026Article
- Real-time locomotion mode detection in individuals with transfemoral amputation and osseointegration.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Commercially available motorized prosthetic legs use exclusively nonbiological signals to control movements, such as those provided by load cells, pressure sensors, and inertial measurement units (IMUs). Although the use of biological signals of neuromuscular origin can provide more natural control of leg prostheses, these signals cannot yet be captured and decoded reliably enough to be used in daily life. Indeed, decoding motor intention from bioelectric signals obtained from the residual limb holds great potential, and therefore, the study of decoding algorithms has increased in the past years, with standardized methods lacking. Methods: In the absence of shared tools to record and process lower limb bioelectric signals, such as electromyography (EMG), we developed an open-source software platform to unify the recording and processing (preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification) of EMG and nonbiological signals amongst researchers with the goal of investigating and benchmarking control algorithms. We validated our locomotion decoding (LocoD) software by comparing the accuracy in the classification of locomotion mode using three different combinations of sensors (1 = IMU + pressure sensor + EMG, 2 = EMG, 3 = IMU + pressure sensor). EMG and nonbiological signals (from the IMU and pressure sensor) were recorded while able-bodied participants ( Results: We found that the sensor combination 1 (IMU + pressure sensor + EMG) led to significantly more accurate and improved locomotion mode prediction (Accuracy = 93.4 ± 3.9) than using EMG (Accuracy = 74.56 ± 5.8) or IMU + pressure sensor alone (Accuracy = 90.77 ± 4.6) with Conclusions: In this study, we introduced and validated the functionality of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.