An Investigation on the Sampling Frequency of the Upper-Limb Force Myographic Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Force myography (FMG) is an emerging method to register muscle activity of a limb using force sensors for human-machine interface and movement monitoring applications. Despite its newly gained popularity among researchers, many of its fundamental characteristics remain to be investigated. The aim of this study is to identify the minimum sampling frequency needed for recording upper-limb FMG signals without sacrificing signal integrity. Twelve healthy volunteers participated in an experiment in which they were instructed to perform rapid hand actions with FMG signals being recorded from the wrist and the bulk region of the forearm. The FMG signals were sampled at 1 kHz with a 16-bit resolution data acquisition device. We downsampled the signals with frequencies ranging from 1 Hz to 500 Hz to examine the discrepancies between the original signals and the downsampled ones. Based on the results, we suggest that FMG signals from the forearm and wrist should be collected with minimum sampling frequencies of 54 Hz and 58 Hz for deciphering isometric actions, and 70 Hz and 84 Hz for deciphering dynamic actions. This fundamental work provides insight into minimum requirements for sampling FMG signals such that the data content of such signals is not compromised.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".