On the Impact of Biceps Muscle Fatigue in Human Activity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, Human Activity Recognition (HAR) systems, which use wearables and smart systems, are a part of our daily life. Despite the abundance of literature in the area, little is known about the impact of muscle fatigue on these systems' performance. In this work, we use the biceps concentration curls exercise as an example of a HAR activity to observe the impact of fatigue impact on such systems. Our dataset consists of 3000 biceps concentration curls performed and collected from 20 volunteers aged between 20-35. Our findings indicate that fatigue often occurs in later sets of an exercise and extends the completion time of later sets by up to 31% and decreases muscular endurance by 4.1%. Another finding shows that changes in data patterns are often occurring during fatigue presence, causing seven features to become statistically insignificant. Further findings indicate that fatigue can cause a substantial decrease in performance in both subject-specific and cross-subject models. Finally, we observed that a Feedforward Neural Network (FNN) showed the best performance in both cross-subject and subject-specific models in all our evaluations.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".