MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984837143 · doi:10.1002/mus.21470

High‐pass filtering surface EMG in an attempt to better represent the signals detected at the intramuscular level

2009· article· en· W1984837143 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen H.M. Brown, Rebecca L. Brookham, Clark R. Dickerson

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromyographySIGNAL (programming language)WaveformSurface (topology)Biomedical engineeringCutoffAnatomyMaterials scienceComputer scienceMedicinePhysicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsVoltageGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface electromyography (EMG) is often used to represent activation profiles of the underlying musculature. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential of high-pass (HP) filtering to improve the matching of surface EMG signals to those signals recorded intramuscularly. EMG was recorded at the skin surface over the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles as well as from fine-wire electrodes placed in the infraspinatus, supraspinatus, and teres minor muscles. The surface EMG signals were HP-filtered at 18 cutoff frequencies (0-510 HZ in 30 HZ increments), and the time-histories were correlated with the signals from the wire electrodes. HP filtering did not significantly alter the correlated muscle activation waveform relationship between the surface and wire signals until cutoffs reached 240 HZ. HP filtering of the surface signals did not improve the representation of the muscle fiber-level activation profile, but the results suggest that enough information resides in the high-frequency components of the signal to reproduce the activation time-history profile of the muscle.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207