A Comparison of Surface and Intramuscular Myoelectric Signal Classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surface myoelectric signal (MES) has been used as an input to controllers for powered prostheses for many years. As a result of recent technological advances it is reasonable to assume that there will soon be implantable myoelectric sensors which will enable the internal MES to be used as input to these controllers. An internal MES measurement should have less muscular crosstalk allowing for more independent control sites. However, it remains unclear if this benefit outweighs the loss of the more global information contained in the surface MES. This paper compares the classification accuracy of six pattern recognition-based myoelectric controllers which use multi-channel surface MES as inputs to the same controllers which use multi-channel intramuscular MES as inputs. An experiment was designed during which surface and intramuscular MES were collected simultaneously for 10 different classes of isometric contraction. There was no significant difference in classification accuracy as a result of using the intramuscular MES measurement technique when compared to the surface MES measurement technique. Impressive classification accuracy (97%) could be achieved by optimally selecting only three channels of surface MES.
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.
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 it