Neural Signal Decoding for Prosthetic Control: Brain- and Muscle-Signal-Based Approaches

Authors

  • Xile Wang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/079azq61

Keywords:

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), Neural Decoding, Electromyography (EMG), Prosthetic Control, Sensory Feedback

Abstract

Neural decoding technology has made great strides in the past two decades, transitioning from the lab to clinical applications. Brain signals and electromyographic (EMG) signals have emerged as two key information sources for prosthetic control: the former includes invasive and noninvasive neural electrical activity, and the latter leverages residual muscle and peripheral nerve signals. This paper reviews recent advances in prosthetic control from the perspectives of brain-signal-based control and musclesignal-based control. This paper introduces the main signal types, decoding algorithms, and representative applications, provides a comparative analysis of these signals in terms of information capacity, stability, invasiveness, etc., and discusses current limitations and future prospects. By surveying the latest research, this review aims to offer valuable insights for future neuroprosthetics research and clinical applications. At a broader level, the development of neural decoding reflects the ongoing convergence of science, technology, and medicine, and its future progress will not only reshape prosthetic design but also expand our understanding of human–machine interaction, rehabilitation, and even the nature of human agency itself.

References

[1] Willett, F. R., Kunz, E. M., Fan, C., et al. A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. Nature, 2023, 620(7976): 1031–1036. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06377-x.

[2] Barrese, J. C., Rao, N., Paroo, K., et al. Failure mode analysis of silicon-based intracortical microelectrode arrays in non-human primates. J. Neural Eng., 2013, 10(6): 066014. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066014.

[3] Hotson, G., McMullen, D. P., Fifer, M. S., et al. Individual finger control of a modular prosthetic limb using high-density electrocorticography in a human subject. J. Neural Eng., 2016, 13(2): 026017. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/026017.

[4] Roche, A. D., Bailey, Z. K., Gonzalez, M., et al. Upper limb prostheses: bridging the sensory gap. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol., 2023, 48(3): 182–190. DOI: 10.1177/17531934221131756.

[5] Petrini, F. M., Valle, G., Strauss, I., et al. Six-month assessment of a hand prosthesis with intraneural tactile feedback. Ann. Neurol., 2019, 85(1): 137–154. DOI: 10.1002/ana.25384.

[6] Čvančara, P., Valle, G., Müller, M., et al. Bringing sensation to prosthetic hands—chronic assessment of implanted thin-film electrodes in humans. npj Flex. Electron., 2023, 7(1): 51. DOI: 10.1038/s41528-023-00284-x.

[7] Flesher, S. N., Downey, J. E., Weiss, J. M., et al. A braincomputer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control. Science, 2021, 372(6544): 831–836. DOI: 10.1126/science.abd0380.

[8] Montazerin, M., Rahimian, E., Naderkhani, F., et al. Transformer-based hand gesture recognition from high-density EMG signals. Sci. Rep., 2023, 13(1): 11000. DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-023-36490-w.

[9] Weng, Z., Xiao, Y., Li, P., et al. Real-time fine finger motion decoding for transradial amputees with surface electromyography. Neural Networks, 2025, 190: 107605. DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2025.107605.

[10] Griggs, W. S., Norman, S. L., Deffieux, T., et al. Decoding motor plans using a closed-loop ultrasonic brain–machine interface. Nat. Neurosci., 2024, 27(2): 196–207. DOI: 10.1038/ s41593-023-01500-7.

[11] Syed, A. U., Sattar, N. Y., Ganiyu, I., et al. Deep learningbased framework for real-time upper limb motion intention classification using combined bio-signals. Front. Neurorobot., 2023, 17: 1174613. DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2023.1174613.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-28