MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998360211 · doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.102383

A method for editing motor unit potential trains obtained by decomposition of surface electromyographic signals

2019· article· en· W2998360211 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert I. Kumar, Matt M. Mallette, Stephen S. Cheung, Daniel W. Stashuk, David A. Gabriel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electromyography and Kinesiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety for Nautical Research
KeywordsMotor unitNoise reductionStatisticsConfidence intervalMathematicsComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Noise (video)Speech recognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rather than discarding motor unit potential trains (MUPTs) because they do not meet 100% validity criteria, we describe and evaluate a novel editing routine that preserves valid discharge times, based on decreasing shape variability (variance ratio, VR) within a MUPT. The error filtered estimation (EFE) algorithm is then applied to the remaining 'high confidence' discharge times to estimate inter-discharge interval (IDI) statistics. Decomposed surface EMG data from the flexor carpi radialis recorded from 20 participants during 60% MVC wrist flexion was used. There were two levels of denoising criteria (relaxed and strict) criteria for removing MUPs to decrease the VR and increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a MUPT. In total, VR decreased 24.88% and SNR increased 6.0% (p's < 0.05). The MUP template peak-to-peak (P-P) amplitude and P-P duration were dependent on the level of denoising (p's < 0.05). The standard error of the estimate (SEE) of the mean IDI before and after editing using the relaxed criteria (3.2% versus 3.69%), was very similar (p > 0.05). The same was true for the SEE between denoising criteria, which increased only to 5.14% for the strict criteria (p > 0.05). Editing the MUPTs resulted in a significant decrease in MUP shape variability and in the measures extracted from the MUP templates, with trivial differences between the SEE of the mean IDI between the edited and unedited MUPTs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electromyography and KinesiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207