MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518124335 · doi:10.1049/el.2016.2986

Detecting muscle contractions using strain gauges

2016· article· en· W2518124335 on OpenAlexaff
Cherif Zizoua, Maxime Raison, Samir Boukhenous, M. Attari, Sofiane Achiche

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrain gaugeElectromyographyBiomedical engineeringStrain (injury)Sampling (signal processing)Silicone rubberProsthetic handReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceAcousticsMaterials scienceArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringStructural engineeringMedicineAnatomyDetectorPower (physics)TelecommunicationsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myoelectric prostheses aim to help amputees to experience partial function of the absent organ. The sensors usually used to control the prostheses are surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes, of which the number tends to increase with the increase of the number of degrees of freedom in the recent prostheses, i.e. dozens of sensors today. However, sEMG requires a high sampling frequency, traditionally about 1000 Hz, which drastically limits the number of sensors that the processors can manage. The objective is to develop a device enabling to measure muscle contractions (MCs) with a sampling frequency compared with the movement frequencies. Strain gauges are known for their accuracy, so using them to detect MCs could help to predict the movement intentions of the amputee. The designed devise includes the integration of four strain gauges in silicone rubber that is similar to human skin. The reliability of the sensor results is demonstrated by a comparison with Ag/AgCl electrodes of an electromyography system. The correlation coefficient is very high (0.89) between the tensions measured by the sEMG and the strain gauges. So the advantage of a low sampling frequency compared with sEMG is the potential development of matrices with many strain gauges.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronics LettersSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207