A Simultaneous Comparison Of Vibromyography With Electromyography During Isometric Contraction Of The Human Quadriceps Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and electromyography (EMG) were compared during isometric contraction of the human quadriceps muscles, by evaluating the averaged root mean squared (RhlS) value, peak frequency, and mean frequency (MF) of simultaneously recorded VMG and EMG signals for four levels of muscle contraction on a Cybex 11 machine at 60° of knee joint flexion angle. It was found that the VMG and EMG signals were in general equally sensitive to the levels of muscle contraction. Results show that the RMS values of the VMG and the EMG signals increase linearly, in a similar manner, with increasing muscle contraction levels. Furthermore, the study indicates that the averaged mean frequency (C25 Hz) of VMG signals is much lower than that (>70 Hz) of EMG signals, and that the slopes of MF/moment curves for VMG and EMG are approximately the same. The frequency difference and the slope similarity may he explained using electro-physiological findings reported in the literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".