Investigation of Fatigue Using Different EMG Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehabilitative exercise for people suffering from upper limb impairments has the potential to improve their neuro-plasticity due to repetitive training. Our study investigates the usefulness of Electroencephalogram and Electromyogram (EMG) signals for incorporation in humanrobot interaction loop. Twenty healthy participants recruited who performed a series of physical and cognitive tasks, with an inherent fatiguing component in those tasks. Here we report observed effects on EMG signals. Participants performed a Biceps curl repetitions using a suitable dumbbell in three phases. In phase 1, the initial weight was set to achieve maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Phase 2 followed with 80 % MVC and phase 3 had 60% MVC. After each phase, they had a break around 3 minutes. EMG data were acquired from Biceps, Triceps, and Brachioradialis muscles. Different EMG features were explored to inform on muscle fatigue during this interaction. Comparing EMG during the first and last dumbbell of each phase demonstrated that the muscle fatigue had caused an increase in the average power (94% of cases) and amplitude (91%) and a decrease in the mean (80%) and the median frequency (57%) of EMG, which was more noticeable in Biceps. The results from integrated EMG showed a continuous rise in all three muscles which was more pronounced in Biceps muscle. Given these results, we identify EMG average power as the most reliable feature for informing on muscle fatigue.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".