Evaluating the Relationship Between Muscle Activation and Spine Kinematics Through Wavelet Coherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in time-frequency analysis can provide new insights into the important, yet complex relationship between muscle activation (ie, electromyography [EMG]) and motion during dynamic tasks. We use wavelet coherence to compare a fundamental cyclical movement (lumbar spine flexion and extension) to the surface EMG linear envelope of 2 trunk muscles (lumbar erector spinae and internal oblique). Both muscles cohere to the spine kinematics at the main cyclic frequency, but lumbar erector spinae exhibits significantly greater coherence than internal oblique to kinematics at 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 Hz. Coherence phase plots of the 2 muscles exhibit different characteristics. The lumbar erector spinae precedes trunk extension at 0.25 Hz, whereas internal oblique is in phase with spine kinematics. These differences may be due to their proposed contrasting functions as a primary spine mover (lumbar erector spinae) versus a spine stabilizer (internal oblique). We believe that this method will be useful in evaluating how a variety of factors (eg, pain, dysfunction, pathology, fatigue) affect the relationship between muscles' motor inputs (ie, activation measured using EMG) and outputs (ie, the resulting joint motion patterns).
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".