MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168436483 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2008.2010392

The Effect of ECG Interference on Pattern-Recognition-Based Myoelectric Control for Targeted Muscle Reinnervated Patients

2008· article· en· W2168436483 on OpenAlexaff
Levi J. Hargrove, Ping Zhou, Kevin Englehart, Todd Kuiken

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinnervationInterference (communication)ElectromyographyPattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnatomyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Targeted muscle reinnervation has been introduced as an effective neural machine interface. In the case of a shoulder disarticulation patient, an effective site for a nerve transfer involves the pectoralis muscles, as these perform little useful function with a missing limb. Consequently, the myoelectric signals measured from the reinnervated muscles may be corrupted by a large amount of ECG interference. This paper investigates the effect of ECG upon the accuracy of a pattern-classification-based scheme for myoelectric control of powered upper limb prostheses. The results suggest that ECG interference, at levels typically encountered in a clinical measurement, has little effect upon classification accuracy, but can affect the estimate of myoelectric activity used to convey the velocity of motion (commonly referred to as proportional control). High-pass filtering at approximately 100 Hz appears to effectively mitigate the effect of ECG interference.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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