Our website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with this notice and the Terms of Use.
JOURNAL EXPERTS OF THE JOURNAL CONFERENCES TELEGRAM FOR AUTHORS
Submit manuscript
Russian Journal of Information Technology in Sports
Journals / Russian Journal of Information Technology in Sports / Volume 3 Issue 3 / Individual patterns of motor control in real-object control using a system with electromyographic biofeedback
VAK Russia 1.1.10 UDC 612.766.1 CSCSTI 20.00 Russian Classification of Professions by Education 02.00.00 Russian Library and Bibliographic Classification 75 Russian Trade and Bibliographic Classification 51 BISAC COM074000 VAK Russia 1.5.5 VAK Russia 5.3.2 VAK Russia 5.8.5 VAK Russia 5.8.6 UDC 615.851 CSCSTI 77.05 Russian Classification of Professions by Education 06.00.00 Russian Library and Bibliographic Classification 884 Russian Trade and Bibliographic Classification 4603 BISAC COM079010 BISAC MED084000

INDIVIDUAL PATTERNS OF MOTOR CONTROL IN REAL-OBJECT CONTROL USING A SYSTEM WITH ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC BIOFEEDBACK Individual patterns of motor control in real-object control using a system with electromyographic biofeedback

Published in Russian Journal of Information Technology in Sports · Volume 3, Issue 3, 2026 · Pages 1–22 · Rubric: DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN EXTREME AND SPORTS PHYSIOLOGY
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62105/2949-6349-2026-3-3-e202614 · EDN: MSQEST
Received: 28.08.2026 Accepted: 18.09.2026 Published: 20.09.2026
Authors
EL
Elena A. Kriklenko
ORCID Scopus ResearcherID SPIN
AN Anastasia Kovaleva
Anastasia Kovaleva
ORCID Scopus ResearcherID SPIN
EL
Elena Panova
ORCID SPIN
ABSTRACT
Background. The introduction of software and hardware systems (SHS) with electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback into rehabilitation for the control of real physical objects is hindered by insufficient development of methodological support. Unlike screen-based and virtual trainers, such systems form a closed sensorimotor loop involving proprioceptive feedback, which requires special methodological approaches. In this regard, the study of the physiological support for the use of such systems in healthy volunteers, with a description of both subjective assessment of difficulty and objective performance characteristics, is relevant. Aim. To study the individual characteristics of motor control when using an SHS with EMG biofeedback for controlling a real physical object in healthy subjects, using objective performance indicators of exercise execution based on video analysis and subjective assessment of workload. Methods. The pilot observational cross-sectional study involved 26 subjects aged 18–35 years (15 women; 11 men) without neurological diseases or motor impairments. An SHS «BIOMOD» (Neuro MD LLC, Russia) with two Callibri myographic sensors and Android-based software was used. A modified radio-controlled car was controlled via EMG signals during contraction/relaxation of forearm muscles. Participants in two series of exercises (push/pull) controlled the movement of the car in two postural positions (sitting/standing) within a marked 5 m track. Objective assessment of the exercises was performed using video recordings. Subjective workload assessment was evaluated after completing the tasks using the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Russian-language adaptation). Results. In the sitting position, men showed a tendency toward shorter exercise completion time and lower error frequency; in the standing position, these sex differences were leveled out. The integrative indicator of control quality was characterized by relative stability: no statistically significant differences were found between groups. Analysis of subjective workload on the NASA-TLX scale showed that the most pronounced component was «Time Pressure», with moderate values of mental demand, physical effort, and a relatively low level of frustration. Correlation analysis revealed statistically significant relationships between individual NASA-TLX scales and objective control indicators in men; no such associations were found in women. The obtained data indicate the presence of sex differences in the structure of relationships between subjective perception of workload and the effectiveness of controlling a real object via EMG. Conclusion. The characteristics of motor control when controlling a real object via EMG in healthy volunteers were studied. The obtained data may serve as a basis for a methodology for using such devices in rehabilitation practice.
KEYWORDS
electromyography (EMG), biofeedback, voluntary motor control, visual-motor coordination
Text References
Text
Text (RU) (PDF)
Read Download

1. Johannsen G. Human-machine systems research for needs in industry and society. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2001;34(16), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)41493-5

2. Wucherer K. HMI, the window to the manufacturing and process industry. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2001, 34(16), pp. 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)41508-4

3. Palermo E., Laut J., Nov O., Cappa P., Porfiri M. A natural user interface to integrate citizen science and physical exercise. PLoS One, 2017, 12(2), e0172587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172587

4. Pavón-Pulido N., López-Riquelme J.A., Feliú-Batlle J.J. IoT architecture for smart control of an exoskeleton robot in rehabilitation by using a natural user interface based on gestures. Journal of Medical Systems, 2020, 44(9), 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01602-w

5. Lacomis D. Electrodiagnostic approach to the patient with suspected myopathy. Neurologic Clinics, 2002, 20(2), pp. 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0733-8619(01)00013-5

6. Agostini V., Ghislieri M., Rosati S., Balestra G., Knaflitz M. Surface electromyography applied to gait analysis: How to improve its impact in clinics? Frontiers in Neurology. 2020, 11, 994. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00994

7. Jeong J.W., Yeo W.H., Akhtar A., Norton J.J., Kwack Y.J., et al. Materials and optimized designs for human-machine interfaces via epidermal electronics. Advanced Materials, 2013, 25(47), pp. 6839–6846. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201301921

8. Lee S., Yoon J., Lee D., Seong D., Lee S., et al. Wireless epidermal electromyogram sensing system. Electronics, 2020, 9(2), 269. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9020269

9. Yassin M.M., Saad M.N., Khalifa A.M., Said A.M. Advancing clinical understanding of surface electromyography biofeedback: bridging research, teaching, and commercial applications. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2024, 21(8), pp. 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2376699

10. Spencer J., Wolf S.L., Kesar T.M. Biofeedback for post-stroke gait retraining: A review of current evidence and future research directions in the context of emerging technologies. Frontiers in Neurology, 2021, 12, 637199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.637199

11. Yastrebtseva I.P., Manukyan K.A., Shumarina E.L., Belova V.V. Effectiveness of gait training in patients with central hemiparesis. Russian Neurological Journal, 2024, 29(6), pp. 44–50. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30629/2658-7947-2024-29-6-44-50

12. Mahnik S., Aljinović A., Mahnik A., Hrabač P., Žabčić M., Bojanić I. Electromyographic biofeedback or neuromuscular electrical stimulation added to isometric quadriceps exercise does not improve pain and functional outcomes in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 2026, 49(1), pp. 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000689

13. Poteshkin A.V., Talamova I.G. Some aspects of the methodology of EMG biofeedback sessions in children with cerebral palsy. Modern Issues of Biomedicine, 2018, 2(1), pp. 84–92. (in Russ.)

14. Ando T., Matsui K., Okamoto Y., Atsuumi K., Taniguchi K., et al. Physio-avatar EB: aftereffects in error learning with EMG manipulation of first-person avatar experience. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 2024, 12, 1421765. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1421765

15. Dupan S., Stuttaford S., Dyson M. Successful transfer of myoelectric skill from virtual interface to prosthesis control. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2025, 22(6), 066034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ae2803

16. Galushka E.S., Murtazina E.P., Pertsov S.S. Comparative analysis of electromyographic parameters of subjects during sensorimotor training in different social conditions of activity in dyads. Russian Journal of Physiology (Sechenov), 2025, 111(6), pp. 912–928. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869813925060065 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TFAQUZ

17. Chappell J.D., Yu B., Kirkendall D.T., Garrett W.E. A comparison of knee kinetics between male and female recreational athletes in stop-jump tasks. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2002, 30(2), pp. 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465020300021701

18. Hunter S.K. Sex differences in human fatigability: mechanisms and insight to physiological responses. Acta Physiologica, 2014, 210(4), pp. 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12234

19. Hunter S.K., Senefeld J.W. Sex differences in human performance. Journal of Physiology, 2024, 602(17), pp. 4129–4156. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP284198

20. Casamento-Moran A., Hunter S.K., Chen Y.T., Kwon M.H., Fox E.J., et al. Sex differences in spatial accuracy relate to the neural activation of antagonistic muscles in young adults. Experimental Brain Research, 2017, 235(8), pp. 2425–2436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-4968-6

21. Bianco V., Berchicci M., Quinzi F., Perri R.L., Spinelli D., Di Russo F. Females are more proactive, males are more reactive: neural basis of the gender-related speed/accuracy trade-off in visuo-motor tasks. Brain Structure and Function, 2020, 225(1), pp. 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01998-3

22. Rybina E.P., Angelgardt A.N., Berezner T.A., Rastorgueva A.I., Slominskaya S.P. NASA-TLX questionnaire for measuring cognitive workload: adaptation in a Russian-speaking sample. In: Psychology of Cognition: Collection of materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference in memory of J. S. Bruner. Yaroslavl: Filigran', 2023, pp. 269–273. (in Russ.)

23. Babanov N.D., Volkov M.V., Kovaleva A.V., Kriklenko E.A. Mobile application for registration of physiological signals and control of external objects MioKit : certificate of state registration of a computer program No.2024681406. 2024. (in Russ.)

24. White M.M., Morejon O.N., Liu S., Lau M.Y., Nam C.S., Kaber D.B. Muscle loading in exoskeletal orthotic use in an activity of daily living. Applied Ergonomics, 2017, 58, pp. 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.010

25. Castañeda T.S., Connan M., Capsi-Morales P., Beckerle P., Castellini C., Piazza C. Experimental evaluation of the impact of sEMG interfaces in enhancing embodiment of virtual myoelectric prostheses. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2024, 21(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01352-7

26. Liu X., Dai C., Liu J., Yuan Y. Effects of exercise on the inter-session accuracy of sEMG-based hand gesture recognition. Bioengineering, 2024, 11(8), 811. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080811

27. Luger T., Seibt R., Rieger M.A., Steinhilber B. Sex differences in muscle activity and motor variability in response to a non-fatiguing repetitive screwing task. Biology of Sex Differences, 2020, 11(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-020-0282-2

28. Danna-Dos-Santos A., Slomka K., Zatsiorsky V.M., Latash M.L. Muscle modes and synergies during voluntary body sway. Experimental Brain Research, 2007, 179(4), pp. 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0812-0

29. Kovaleva A.V., Biryukova E.A., Kubryak O.V. Postural control ability and autonomic and central nervous system parameters in healthy volunteers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2018, 131(S), S47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.07.143

30. Mohamed M.O., Wood G., Wright D.J., Parr J.V.V. Reducing grip uncertainty during initial prosthetic hand use improves eye-hand coordination and lowers mental workload. Journal of Motor Behavior, 2024, 56(4), pp. 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2024.2328297

31. Williams H.E., Shehata A.W., Cheng K.Y., Hebert J.S., Pilarski P.M. A multifaceted suite of metrics for comparative myoelectric prosthesis controller research. PLoS One, 2024, 19(5), e0291279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291279

32. Gjoreski M. et al. Gender differences in physiological and subjective responses to mental workload. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2020, 24(7), pp. 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2019.2953983

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
PDF Text JATS XML
The contact persons
Egor Timme
Editor-in-Chief
Egor Timme
info@rjits.ru
Sergey Rudnev
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Sergey Rudnev
rdnv2019@yandex.ru
Sergey Simakov
Scientific Editor
Sergey Simakov
simakovss@ya.ru
Albina Andreeva
Editorial Board member
Albina Andreeva
moymio@yandex.ru
Ekaterina Galimova
Executive Secretary
Ekaterina Galimova
galim81@mail.ru
Anastasia Kovaleva
Editorial Board member
Anastasia Kovaleva
kovaleva_av@academpharm.ru
Elena Skarzhinskaya
Member of the Editorial Board
Elena Skarzhinskaya
skar_e@mail.ru
9
downloads
RINC Crossref Cyberleninka Istina MSU Colab Open Alex
CC
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons
© rjits.ru
Agreement Personal data protection and processing policy Support Powered by Editorum, 2026 Instructions
Login or Create
* Forgot your password?