Evaluating Muscle Activation Models for Elbow Motion Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of wearable assistive technologies relies heavily on improvement of existing control system models. Knowing which models to use and how to improve them is difficult to determine due to the number of proposed solutions with relatively little broad comparisons. One type of these models, muscle activation models, describes the nonlinear relationship between neural inputs and mechanical activation of the muscle. Many muscle activation models can be found in the literature, but no comparison is available to guide the community on limitations and improvements. In this research, an EMG-driven elbow motion model is developed for the purpose of evaluating muscle activation models. Seven muscle activation models are used in an optimization procedure to determine which model has the best performance. Root mean square errors in muscle torque estimation range from 1.67-2.19 Nm on average over varying input trajectories. The computational resource demand was also measured during the optimization procedure, as it is an important aspect for determining if a model is feasible for use in a particular wearable assistive device. This study provides insight into the ability of these models to estimate elbow motion and the trade-off between estimation accuracy and computational demand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".