Movement Complexity and Neuromechanical Factors Affect the Entropic Half-Life of Myoelectric Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appropriate neuromuscular functioning is essential for survival and features underpinning motor control are present in myoelectric signals recorded from skeletal muscles. One approach to quantify control processes related to function is to assess signal variability using measures such as Sample Entropy. Here we developed a theoretical framework to simulate the effect of variability in burst duration, activation duty cycle, and intensity on the Entropic Half-Life (EnHL) in myoelectric signals. EnHLs were predicted to be <40 ms, and to vary with fluctuations in myoelectric signal amplitude and activation duty cycle. Comparison with myoelectic data from rats walking and running at a range of speeds and inclines confirmed the range of EnHLs, however, the direction of EnHL change in response to altered locomotor demand was not correctly predicted. The discrepancy reflected different associations between the ratio of the standard deviation and mean signal intensity ([Formula: see text]) and duty factor in simulated and physiological data, likely reflecting additional information in the signals from the physiological data (e.g., quiescent phase content; variation in action potential shapes). EnHL could have significant value as a novel marker of neuromuscular responses to alterations in perceived locomotor task complexity and intensity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".