Simulation of facial expressions using person-specific sEMG signals controlling a biomechanical face model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Functional inoperability in advanced oral cancer is difficult to assess preoperatively. To assess functions of lips and tongue, biomechanical models are required. Apart from adjusting generic models to individual anatomy, muscle activation patterns (MAPs) driving patient-specific functional movements are necessary to predict remaining functional outcome. We aim to evaluate how volunteer-specific MAPs derived from surface electromyographic (sEMG) signals control a biomechanical face model. METHODS: Muscle activity of seven facial muscles in six volunteers was measured bilaterally with sEMG. A triple camera set-up recorded 3D lip movement. The generic face model in ArtiSynth was adapted to our needs. We controlled the model using the volunteer-specific MAPs. Three activation strategies were tested: activating all muscles [Formula: see text], selecting the three muscles showing highest muscle activity bilaterally [Formula: see text]-this was calculated by taking the mean of left and right muscles and then selecting the three with highest variance-and activating the muscles considered most relevant per instruction [Formula: see text], bilaterally. The model's lip movement was compared to the actual lip movement performed by the volunteers, using 3D correlation coefficients [Formula: see text]. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between simulations and measurements with [Formula: see text] resulted in a median [Formula: see text] of 0.77. [Formula: see text] had a median [Formula: see text] of 0.78, whereas with [Formula: see text] the median [Formula: see text] decreased to 0.45. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that MAPs derived from noninvasive sEMG measurements can control movement of the lips in a generic finite element face model with a median [Formula: see text] of 0.78. Ultimately, this is important to show the patient-specific residual movement using the patient's own MAPs. When the required treatment tools and personalisation techniques for geometry and anatomy become available, this may enable surgeons to test the functional results of wedge excisions for lip cancer in a virtual environment and to weigh surgery versus organ-sparing radiotherapy or photodynamic therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".