MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969921253 · doi:10.1109/51.982275

Estimation and application of EMG amplitude during dynamic contractions

2001· article· en· W1969921253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudeBiomedical engineeringElectromyographyComputer scienceEngineeringMedicinePhysicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sections above have described an EMG amplitude estimator and an initial application of this estimator to the EMG-torque problem. The amplitude estimator consists of six stages. In the first stage, motion artifact and power-line interference are attenuated. Motion artifact is typically removed with a highpass filter. Elimination of power-line noise is more difficult. Commercial systems tend to use notch filters, accepting the concomitant loss of "true" signal power in exchange for simplicity and robustness. Adaptive methods may be preferable, however, to preserve more "true" signal power. In stage two, the signal is whitened. One fixed whitening technique and two adaptive whitening methods were described. For low-amplitude levels, the adaptive whitening technique that includes adaptive noise cancellation may be necessary. In stage three, multiple EMG channels (all overlying the same muscle) are combined. For most applications, simple gain normalization is all that is required. Stage four rectifies the signal and then applies the power law required to demodulate the signal. In stage six, the inverse of the power law is applied to relinearize the signal. Direct comparison of MAV (first power) to RMS (second power) processing demonstrates little difference between the two. Therefore, unless there is reason to believe that the EMG density departs strongly from that found in the existing studies, RMS and MAV processing are essentially identical. In stage five, the demodulated samples are averaged across all channels and then smoothed (time averaged) to reduce the variance of the amplitude estimate, but at the expense of increasing the bias. For best performance, the window length that best trades off variance and bias error is selected. The advanced EMG processing was next applied to dynamic EMG-torque estimation about the elbow joint. Results showed that improved EMG amplitude estimates led to improved EMG-torque estimates. An initial comparison of different system-identification techniques and model orders was reported. It is expected that these advanced processing and identification algorithms will also improve performance in other EMG applications, including myoelectrically controlled prostheses, biofeedback, and ergonomic assessment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it