MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595536976 · doi:10.1115/1.4036288

Estimation of Maximum Finger Tapping Frequency Using Musculoskeletal Dynamic Simulations

2017· article· en· W2595536976 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

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTappingFinger tappingAmplitudeSIGNAL (programming language)Index fingerAcousticsAttenuationComputer scienceParameterized complexityControl theory (sociology)SimulationPhysicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model for forward dynamic simulation of the rapid tapping motion of an index finger is presented. The finger model was actuated by two muscle groups: one flexor and one extensor. The goal of this analysis was to estimate the maximum tapping frequency that the index finger can achieve using forward dynamics simulations. To achieve this goal, each muscle excitation signal was parameterized by a seventh-order Fourier series as a function of time. Simulations found that the maximum tapping frequency was 6 Hz, which is reasonably close to the experimental data. Amplitude attenuation (37% at 6 Hz) due to excitation/activation filtering, as well as the inability of muscles to produce enough force at high contractile velocities, are factors that prevent the finger from moving at higher frequencies. Musculoskeletal models have the potential to shed light on these restricting mechanisms and help to better understand human capabilities in motion production.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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