Mechanomyography as an access pathway: corporeal contraindications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to delineate the impairments of body functions and structures which specifically inhibit mechanomyography (MMG)-based switch control as an alternative access pathway. METHOD: Seven individuals with severe physical disabilities and varied diagnoses of neuromuscular or neurological conditions tested a MMG switch. A semi-structured protocol was used to gather quantitative and qualitative indications of the switch's performance, and descriptive perceptions of the participants and their care givers. RESULTS: The participants controlled the switch by contracting muscles of their forehead, forearm or shoulder. Body functions and structures that negatively affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the recorded MMG signal included involuntary dystonic movement, impaired muscle control, atrophied muscles, muscle spasticity and involuntary activity of neighbouring muscles. CONCLUSIONS: The MMG switch is strongly recommended where the muscle site and its control are intact and signal artefact is minimal. Its viability when muscle activity at the access site may be confounded by signal artefact is dependent on the strength of the voluntary muscle contraction relative to that of artefacts such as spastic contractions, involuntary dystonic movements, muscle spasms and physiological vibrations. Neurological conditions, such as spasticity, that compromise the user's ability to voluntarily contract or suppress muscle contractions may be considered contraindications to MMG-based access.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".