MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144357419 · doi:10.1109/10.844217

Adaptive whitening of the electromyogram to improve amplitude estimation

2000· article· en· W2144357419 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Edward A. Clancy, K.A. Farry

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité LavalRice UniversityU.S. Air ForcePrinceton UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAmplitudeComputer scienceEstimationElectromyographySpeech recognitionElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research showed that whitening the surface electromyogram (EMG) can improve EMG amplitude estimation (where EMG amplitude is defined as the time-varying standard deviation of the EMG). However, conventional whitening via a linear filter seems to fail at low EMG amplitude levels, perhaps due to additive background noise in the measured EMG. This paper describes an adaptive whitening technique that overcomes this problem by cascading a nonadaptive whitening filter, an adaptive Wiener filter, and an adaptive gain correction. These stages can be calibrated from two, five second duration, constant-angle, constant-force contractions, one at a reference level [e.g., 50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC)] and one at 0% MVC. In experimental studies, subjects used real-time EMG amplitude estimates to track a uniform-density, band-limited random target. With a 0.25-Hz bandwidth target, either adaptive whitening or multiple-channel processing reduced the tracking error roughly half-way to the error achieved using the dynamometer signal as the feedback. At the 1.00-Hz bandwidth, all of the EMG processors had errors equivalent to that of the dynamometer signal, reflecting that errors in this task were dominated by subjects' inability to track targets at this bandwidth. Increases in the additive noise level, smoothing window length, and tracking bandwidth diminish the advantages of whitening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207