Comparison between sEMG and force as control interfaces to support planar arm movements in adults with Duchenne: a feasibility study.

Only three adults with DMD were tested, so this cannot show which interface works best for the wider DMD population. Participants could not always complete all trials, especially the weakest participant, so comparisons rest on few observations. The order of interfaces was not randomised because the sample was small and participants varied widely in arm function. The force-based and muscle-signal methods used different tuning parameters, so performance differences may reflect device settings rather than the signal type alone. Fatigue was captured only through subjective questionnaire items, not objective quantitative testing. The study reports feasibility and movement performance, not clinical efficacy for daily activities.

The paper names Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen as funder. It does not give a conflicts-of-interest declaration in the supplied text.

Do not conclude that muscle-signal control is proven better for adults with Duchenne. Only three participants were tested, the interfaces used different tuning parameters, and fatigue was reported subjectively rather than measured objectively.