MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploration of Force Myography and surface Electromyography in hand gesture classification

2017· article· en· W2585619243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGestureElectromyographyElectrical impedance myographyComputer scienceGesture recognitionWristArtificial intelligenceWearable computerForearmInterface (matter)Speech recognitionThumbPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas pressure sensors increasingly have received attention as a non-invasive interface for hand gesture recognition, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated. This work examined the performance of hand gesture classification using Force Myography (FMG) and surface Electromyography (sEMG) technologies by performing 3 sets of 48 hand gestures using a prototyped FMG band and an array of commercial sEMG sensors worn both on the wrist and forearm simultaneously. The results show that the FMG band achieved classification accuracies as good as the high quality, commercially available, sEMG system on both wrist and forearm positions; specifically, by only using 8 Force Sensitive Resisters (FSRs), the FMG band achieved accuracies of 91.2% and 83.5% in classifying the 48 hand gestures in cross-validation and cross-trial evaluations, which were higher than those of sEMG (84.6% and 79.1%). By using all 16 FSRs on the band, our device achieved high accuracies of 96.7% and 89.4% in cross-validation and cross-trial evaluations.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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