MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2775828770

Muscle Conduction Velocity Estimation Using High Density Electromyography

2016· article· en· W2775828770 on OpenAlexaff
Ashmita De, Gregg A. Johns, Evelyn Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachioradialisBicepsElectromyographyElbowNerve conduction velocityMathematicsMuscle contractionAnatomyPopulationBiomedical engineeringMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overall conduction velocity (CV) in a population of activated muscle fibres is related to the state of the muscle and can be estimated from the electromyogram (EMG). CV estimation is affected by the distance between electrodes of a bipolar pair (inter-electrode distance or IED), and the distance between two bipolar pairs used to detect conduction delay (inter-signal distance or ISD). Reported CV’s are generally in the range of 3.5 – 5 m/s [Farina-MBEC-2001; Beck-JEK-2004]. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect on CV estimates of IED and ISD, contraction level, and muscle length. EMG data were recorded from the long and short heads of the biceps brachii (BBL and BBS), and brachioradialis (BR), of five subjects, using monopolar high-density EMG electrodes. Subjects performed elbow flexion contractions at three force levels (30, 40 and 50% maximum), and three elbow joint angles (60, 90 and 120 degrees). CV estimates were computed for different bipolar electrode configurations; estimates corresponding to published values were obtained for IED=15 mm and ISD=20 mm. ANOVA analysis of CV values revealed that contraction level had no significant effect (p-values: 0.336 to 0.774), and CV varied significantly with joint angle only for the highest contraction level in BBS (p=0.01). Values for all contraction levels were then grouped; ANOVA analysis showed that CV varied significantly with muscle (p<0.00002) for all joint angles. These results are analysed with regard to the nature of the EMG signal, and how the signal changes with contraction level and joint angle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES Proceedings→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→