Measuring human locomotor control using EMG and EEG: Current knowledge, limitations and future considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical signals encoding different forms of information can be observed at multiple levels of the human nervous system. Typically, these signals have been recorded in a rather isolated fashion with little overlap between the static recordings of electroencephalography (EEG) commonly used in neuroscience and the typical surface electromyography (EMG) recordings used in biomechanics. However, within the last decade, there has been an emerging need to link the electrical activation patterns of brain areas during movement to the behavior of the musculoskeletal system. This review discusses some of the most recent studies using the EEG and/or EMG to study the neural control of movement and human locomotion as well as studies quantifying the connectivity between brain and muscles. The focus is on rhythmic locomotor-type activities; however, results are discussed within the framework of initial work that has been done in upper and lower limbs during static and dynamic contractions. Limitations and current challenges as well as the possibility and functional interpretation of studying the connectivity between the cortex and skeletal muscles using a measure of coherence are discussed. The manuscript is geared toward scientists interested in the application of EEG in the field of locomotion, sports and exercise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".