Improving functional magnetic resonance imaging motor studies through simultaneous electromyography recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specially designed optoelectronic and data postprocessing methods are described that permit electromyography (EMG) of muscle activity simultaneous with functional MRI (fMRI). Hardware characterization and validation included simultaneous EMG and event-related fMRI in 17 healthy participants during either ankle (n = 12), index finger (n = 3), or wrist (n = 2) contractions cued by visual stimuli. Principal component analysis (PCA) and independent component analysis (ICA) were evaluated for their ability to remove residual fMRI gradient-induced signal contamination in EMG data. Contractions of ankle tibialis anterior and index finger abductor were clearly distinguishable, although observing contractions from the wrist flexors proved more challenging. To demonstrate the potential utility of simultaneous EMG and fMRI, data from the ankle experiments were analyzed using two approaches: 1) assuming contractions coincided precisely with visual cues, and 2) using EMG to time the onset and offset of muscle contraction precisely for each participant. Both methods produced complementary activation maps, although the EMG-guided approach recovered more active brain voxels and revealed activity better in the basal ganglia and cerebellum. Furthermore, numerical simulations confirmed that precise knowledge of behavioral responses, such as those provided by EMG, are much more important for event-related experimental designs compared to block designs. This simultaneous EMG and fMRI methodology has important applications where the amplitude or timing of motor output is impaired, such as after stroke.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".