Performance Optimization of Surface Electromyography Based Biometric Sensing System for Both Verification and Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, surface electromyography (sEMG) emerged as a novel biometric authentication method. Since EMG system parameters, such as the feature extraction methods and the number of channels, have been known to affect system performances, it is important to investigate these effects on the performance of the sEMG-based biometric system to determine optimal system parameters. In this study, three robust feature extraction methods, Time-domain (TD) feature, Frequency Division Technique (FDT), and Autoregressive (AR) feature, and their combinations were investigated while the number of channels varying from one to eight. For these system parameters, the performance of sixteen static wrist and hand gestures was systematically investigated in two authentication modes: verification and identification. The results from 24 participants showed that the TD features significantly ( <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${p} < 0.05$ </tex-math></inline-formula> ) and consistently outperformed FDT and AR features for all channel numbers. The results also showed that the performance of a four-channel setup was not significantly different from those with higher number of channels. The average equal error rate (EER) for a four-channel sEMG verification system was 4% for TD features, 5.3% for FDT features, and 10% for AR features. For an identification system, the average Rank-1 error (R1E) for a four-channel configuration was 3% for TD features, 12.4% for FDT features, and 36.3% for AR features. The electrode position on the flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) muscle had a critical contribution to the authentication performance. Thus, the combination of the TD feature set and a four-channel sEMG system with one of the electrodes positioned on the FCU are recommended for optimal authentication performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".