Automatic detection of muscle activity from mechanomyogram signals: a comparison of amplitude and wavelet-based methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of muscle activity timing is critical to many clinical applications, such as the assessment of muscle coordination and the prescription of muscle-activated switches for individuals with disabilities. In this study, we introduce a continuous wavelet transform (CWT) algorithm for the detection of muscle activity via mechanomyogram (MMG) signals. CWT coefficients of the MMG signal were compared to scale-specific thresholds derived from the baseline signal to estimate the timing of muscle activity. Test signals were recorded from the flexor carpi radialis muscles of 15 able-bodied participants as they squeezed and released a hand dynamometer. Using the dynamometer signal as a reference, the proposed CWT detection algorithm was compared against a global-threshold CWT detector as well as amplitude-based event detection for sensitivity and specificity to voluntary contractions. The scale-specific CWT-based algorithm exhibited superior detection performance over the other detectors. CWT detection also showed good muscle selectivity during hand movement, particularly when a given muscle was the primary facilitator of the contraction. This may suggest that, during contraction, the compound MMG signal has a recurring morphological pattern that is not prevalent in the baseline signal. The ability of CWT analysis to be implemented in real time makes it a candidate for muscle-activity detection in clinical applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it