Vision-Based Segmentation of Continuous Mechanomyographic Grasping Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In detecting motor related activity from mechanomyographic (MMG) recordings, the acquisition of long, continuous streams of MMG signals is typically preferred over the painstaking collection of individual, isolated contractions. However, a major challenge with continuous collection is the subsequent separation of the MMG data stream into segments representing individual contractions. This paper proposes a method for segmenting continuously recorded MMG data streams using computer vision while providing a highly reduced set of key images for rapid human expert verification. Transverse plane video recordings of functional grasp sequences were synchronized with the acquisition of MMG signals from the forearm. An automatic, vision-based algorithm exploiting skin color detection, motion estimation, and template matching provided segmentation cues for MMG signals arising from multiple grips. The automatic segmentation method tolerated extraneous hand movements, differentiated among multiple grips and estimated grip transition times. Our implementation segmented two grips with an average accuracy of 97.8 -/+ 4%, and up to seven grips with an accuracy of 73 -/+ 20%. The automatically extracted contraction initiation and termination times were within 173 -/+ 133 ms of the times obtained via manual segmentation. It is suggested that the proposed method would be particularly conducive to the assembly of large collections of signals for training MMG-driven prostheses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".