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 OpenAlexaff
Edward A. Clancy, Stéphane Bouchard, Denis Rancourt

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology MagazineSame topicGeophysics and Sensor TechnologyFrench-language works237,207