A myoelectric interface needs calibration from the user before it will function.
Earlier work has treated calibration as a quantity, but has not asked the question of what a device should do with the calibration repetitions once they have been collected.
This paper views personalizing the cross-user encoder as a design decision with a cost.
Testing Four Alternative Approaches
Four alternative approaches to using exactly the same labeled repetitions were tested from a single cross-user encoder per held-out subject.
Prototypical adaptation, linear probes, scaled fine-tuning and full fine-tuning were tested at every budget up to the maximum each database allows, five repetitions on DB1 and four on DB2 and DB5.
Comparing Calibration Budgets
Comparing four ways to spend a small calibration budget across 77 subjects, full fine-tuning is the most accurate at every budget, consistently enough that there is no exception among subsets of subjects.
The result which impacts how one might make an engineering decision however is that a gradient free prototypical rule recovers 52 to 78 per cent of its benefit with no optimiser and no per-user copy of the weights, which makes personalisation something a worn device can do at donning time.
The widespread intuition that a good representation only needs a fresh classifier is incorrect here.
How well each method may perform relative to a per-user classifier that would be fitted by a clinic will depend on the specific database.