Visualization of Trunk Muscle Synergies During Sitting Perturbations Using Self-Organizing Maps (SOM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the use of the self-organizing map (SOM) method for visualization, modeling, and comparison of trunk neuromuscular synergies during perturbed sitting. Thirteen participants were perturbed at the level of the sternum, in eight directions during sitting. Electromyographic (EMG) responses of ten trunk muscles involved in postural control were recorded. The SOM was used to encode the EMG responses on a 2-D projection (i.e., visualization). The result contains similar patterns mapped close together on the plot therefore forming clusters of data. Such visualization of ten EMG responses, following eight directional perturbations, allows for comparisons of direction-dependent postural synergies. Direction-dependent neuromuscular response models for each muscle were then constructed from the SOM visualization. The results demonstrated that the SOM was able to encode neuromuscular responses, and the SOM visualization showed direction-dependent differences in the postural synergies. Moreover, each muscle was modeled using the SOM-based method, and derived models showed that all muscles, except for one, produced a Gaussian fit for direction-dependent responses. Overall, SOM analysis offers a reverse engineering method for exploration and comparison of complex neuromuscular systems, which can describe postural synergies at a glance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".