MuscleNET: mapping electromyography to kinematic and dynamic biomechanical variables by machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. This paper proposes machine learning models for mapping surface electromyography (sEMG) signals to regression of joint angle, joint velocity, joint acceleration, joint torque, and activation torque. Approach. The regression models, collectively known as MuscleNET, take one of four forms: ANN (forward artificial neural network), RNN (recurrent neural network), CNN (convolutional neural network), and RCNN (recurrent convolutional neural network). Inspired by conventional biomechanical muscle models, delayed kinematic signals were used along with sEMG signals as the machine learning model’s input; specifically, the CNN and RCNN were modeled with novel configurations for these input conditions. The models’ inputs contain either raw or filtered sEMG signals, which allowed evaluation of the filtering capabilities of the models. The models were trained using human experimental data and evaluated with different individual data. Main results. Results were compared in terms of regression error (using the root-mean-square) and model computation delay. The results indicate that the RNN (with filtered sEMG signals) and RCNN (with raw sEMG signals) models, both with delayed kinematic data, can extract underlying motor control information (such as joint activation torque or joint angle) from sEMG signals in pick-and-place tasks. The CNNs and RCNNs were able to filter raw sEMG signals. Significance. All forms of MuscleNET were found to map sEMG signals within 2 ms, fast enough for real-time applications such as the control of exoskeletons or active prostheses. The RNN model with filtered sEMG and delayed kinematic signals is particularly appropriate for applications in musculoskeletal simulation and biomechatronic device control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".