Feasibility of Data-driven EMG Signal Generation using a Deep Generative Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent advancements in the field of pattern recognition-based myoelectric control, the collection of a high quality training set remains a challenge limiting its adoption. This paper proposes a framework for a possible solution by augmenting short training protocols with subject-specific synthetic electromyography (EMG) data generated using a deep generative network, known as SinGAN. The aim of this work is to produce high quality synthetic data that could improve classification accuracy when combined with a limited training protocol. SinGAN was used to generate 1000 synthetic windows of EMG data from a single window of six different motions, and results were evaluated qualitatively, quantitatively, and in a classification task. Qualitative assessment of synthetic data was conducted via visual inspection of principal component analysis projections of real and synthetic feature space. Quantitative assessment of synthetic data revealed 11 of 32 synthetic features had similar location and scale to real features (using univariate two-sample Lepage tests); whereas multivariate distributions were found to be statistically different (p <0.05). Finally, the addition of these synthetic data to a brief training set of real data significantly improved classification accuracy in a cross-validation testing scheme by 5.4% (p <0.001).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".