Augmenting the decomposition of EMG signals using supervised feature extraction techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition is the process of resolving an EMG signal into its constituent motor unit potential trains (MUPTs). In this work, the possibility of improving the decomposing results using two supervised feature extraction methods, i.e., Fisher discriminant analysis (FDA) and supervised principal component analysis (SPCA), is explored. Using the MUP labels provided by a decomposition-based quantitative EMG system as a training data for FDA and SPCA, the MUPs are transformed into a new feature space such that the MUPs of a single MU become as close as possible to each other while those created by different MUs become as far as possible. The MUPs are then reclassified using a certainty-based classification algorithm. Evaluation results using 10 simulated EMG signals comprised of 3-11 MUPTs demonstrate that FDA and SPCA on average improve the decomposition accuracy by 6%. The improvement for the most difficult-to-decompose signal is about 12%, which shows the proposed approach is most beneficial in the decomposition of more complex signals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".