Muscle force estimation using data fusion from high-density SEMG grid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the proposed work is to evaluate, by simulation, the introduction of a data fusion process from a HD-sEMG grid (8×8) to improve the muscle force estimation from sEMG signal. For this purpose, twelve electrode arrangements are combined to dimension reduction technique (PCA or channel averaging) to obtain a monodimensional sEMG signal. After, this signal is used in a sEMG-force relationship model to estimate the muscular force. In fact, two models, with different complexity, and used in the biomechanics community are studied. In the simulation, three isometric contractions are simulated (20%, 50% and 80% MVC) using a recent sEMG-force generation model. Finally, the Normalized RMS Difference (NRMSD) between the estimated force and the simulated force by the sEMG-force generation model is calculated for each combination (electrode arrangement and dimension reduction technique, force estimator). According to the obtained results, the combination PCA and Laplacian arrangement gave the best fitting using the second force estimator while the best result obtained for the first force estimator is with the Right Diagonal Bipolar (DBR) arrangement combined with channel averaging. In future works, these force estimators, combined to HD-sEMG data fusion, will be experimentally evaluated.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".