Effects of input frequency content and signal-to-noise ratio on the parametric estimation of surface EMG-torque dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic relationship between surface EMG (sEMG) and torque can be estimated from data acquired while subjects voluntarily modulate joint torque. We have shown that for such data, the input (EMG) contains a feedback component from the output (torque) and so accurate estimates of the dynamics require the use of closed-loop identification algorithms. Moreover, this approach has several other limitations since the input is controlled indirectly and so the frequency content and signal-to-noise ratio cannot be controlled. This paper investigates how these factors influence the accuracy of estimates. This was studied using experimental sEMG recorded from healthy human subjects for tasks with different modulation rates. Box-Jenkin (BJ) method was used for identification. Results showed that input frequency content had little effect on estimates of gain and natural frequency but had strong effect on damping factor estimates. It was demonstrated that to accurately estimate the damping factor, the command signal switching rate must be less than 2s. It was also shown that random errors increased with noise level but was limited to 10% of the parameters true value for highest noise level tested. To summarize, simulation study of this work showed that voluntary modulation paradigm can accurately identify sEMG-torque dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".