Regression convolutional neural network for improved simultaneous EMG control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deep learning models can learn representations of data that extract useful information in order to perform prediction without feature engineering. In this paper, an electromyography (EMG) control scheme with a regression convolutional neural network (CNN) is proposed as a substitute of conventional regression models that use purposefully designed features. APPROACH: The usability of the regression CNN model is validated for the first time, using an online Fitts' law style test with both individual and simultaneous wrist motions. Results were compared to that of a support vector regression-based scheme with a group of widely used extracted features. MAIN RESULTS: In spite of the proven efficiency of these well-known features, the CNN-based system outperformed the support vector machine (SVM) based scheme in throughput, due to higher regression accuracies especially with high EMG amplitudes. SIGNIFICANCE: These results indicate that the CNN model can extract underlying motor control information from EMG signals during single and multiple degree-of-freedom (DoF) tasks. The advantage of regression CNN over classification CNN (studied previously) is that it allows independent and simultaneous control of motions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".