Wrist torque estimation during simultaneous and continuously changing movements: surface vs. untargeted intramuscular EMG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the predictive capability of surface and untargeted intramuscular electromyography (EMG) was compared with respect to wrist-joint torque to quantify which type of measurement better represents joint torque during multiple degrees-of-freedom (DoF) movements for possible application in prosthetic control. Ten able-bodied subjects participated in the study. Surface and intramuscular EMG was recorded concurrently from the right forearm. The subjects were instructed to track continuous contraction profiles using single and combined DoF in two trials. The association between torque and EMG was assessed using an artificial neural network. Results showed a significant difference between the two types of EMG (P < 0.007) for all performance metrics: coefficient of determination (R(2)), Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and root mean square error (RMSE). The performance of surface EMG (R(2) = 0.93 ± 0.03; PCC = 0.98 ± 0.01; RMSE = 8.7 ± 2.1%) was found to be superior compared with intramuscular EMG (R(2) = 0.80 ± 0.07; PCC = 0.93 ± 0.03; RMSE = 14.5 ± 2.9%). The higher values of PCC compared with R(2) indicate that both methods are able to track the torque profile well but have some trouble (particularly intramuscular EMG) in estimating the exact amplitude. The possible cause for the difference, thus the low performance of intramuscular EMG, may be attributed to the very high selectivity of the recordings used in this study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".