MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330431166 · doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6943675

On the robustness of EMG features for pattern recognition based myoelectric control; A multi-dataset comparison

2014· article· en· W2330431166 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Scheme, Kevin Englehart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Robustness (evolution)Computer scienceAutoregressive modelSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceEntropy (arrow of time)Feature selectionClassifier (UML)Feature extractionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The selection of optimal features has long been a subject of debate for pattern recognition based myoelectric control. Studies have compared many features, but have typically used small or constrained data sets. Herein, the performance of various features is evaluated using data from six previously reported data sets. The number of channels, the contraction dynamics (dynamic vs static), and classifier type all yielded significant interactions (p<;0.05) with the feature set. When using 8 channels, the addition of the tested features produced no improvement over a standard time domain (TD) feature set alone (p>0.05). When using fewer channels, however, autoregressive, Cepstral coefficients, Willison amplitude and sample entropy features all provided significant improvement during dynamic contractions (p<;0.05). The simple Willison amplitude is highlighted, showing that it can provide significant improvement when used as a replacement for any one of the standard TD features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207