A wavelet based time frequency analysis of electromyograms to group steps of runners into clusters that contain similar muscle activation patterns
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To wavelet transform the electromyograms of the vastii muscles and generate wavelet intensity patterns (WIP) of runners. Test the hypotheses: 1) The WIP of the vastus medialis (VM) and vastus lateralis (VL) of one step are more similar than the WIPs of these two muscles, offset by one step. 2) The WIPs within one muscle differ by having maximal intensities in specific frequency bands and these intensities are not always occurring at the same time after heel strike. 3) The WIPs that were recorded form one muscle for all steps while running can be grouped into clusters with similar WIPs. It is expected that clusters might have distinctly different, cluster specific mean WIPs. METHODS: The EMG of the vastii muscles from at least 1000 steps from twelve runners were recorded using a bipolar current amplifier and yielded WIPs. Based on the weights obtained after a principal component analysis the dissimilarities (1-correlation) between the WIPs were computed. The dissimilarities were submitted to a hierarchical cluster analysis to search for groups of steps with similar WIPs. The clusters formed by random surrogate WIPs were used to determine whether the groups were likely to be created in a non-random manner. RESULTS: The steps were grouped in clusters showing similar WIPs. The grouping was based on the frequency bands and their timing showing that they represented defining parts of the WIPs. The correlations between the WIPs of the vastii muscles that were recorded during the same step were higher than the correlations of WPIs that were recorded during consecutive steps, indicating the non-randomness of the WIPs. CONCLUSIONS: The spectral power of EMGs while running varies during the stance phase in time and frequency, therefore a time averaged power spectrum cannot reflect the timing of events that occur while running. It seems likely that there might be a set of predefined patterns that are used upon demand to stabilize the movement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».