MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241773670 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648175

Analysis of electromyogram in rapid eye movement sleep

2021· preprint· en· W4241773670 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrnaz Shokrollahi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelWaveletLinear discriminant analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Eye movementComputer scienceSpeech recognitionAbnormalitySleep StagesRapid eye movement sleepElectromyographyNon-rapid eye movement sleepArtificial intelligenceElectroencephalographyPolysomnographyMathematicsPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineStatisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to analyze Electromyogram (EMG) signals in Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep using different techniques to detect the level of normality and abnormality of normal and abnormal (patients with a lack of REM sleep atonia) subjects and predict the development of Parkinson’s disease in abnormal subjects. Quantitative elctromyogram (EMG) signal analysis in the frequency domain using classical power spectrum analysis techniques have been well documented over the past decade. Yet none of these [sic] work have been done on EMG during Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Stage of sleep. In this work three techniques for classifying chin movement via EMG signals during sleep is presented. Three methods (Autoregressive modeling, Cepstrum Analysis and Wavelet Analysis) for extracting features from EMG signal during sleep and a classification algorithm (Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)) were analyzed and compared. EMG data are used to detect and describe different disease processes affecting sleep. Rapid Eye Movement Behavior Disorder (RBD) is an example of EMG abnormality in which patients lose their muscle control while in REM stage of sleep resulting in physically acting out their dreams. An adaptive segmentation based on Recursive Least Square (RLS) algorithm was analyzed. This algorithm was used to segment the non-stationary EMG signal into locally stationary components, which were then autoregressive modeled using the Burg-Lattice method. The cepstral measurements described was used and applied to modify the coefficients computed from the autoregressive (AR) model. Yet due to the nature of the EMG, frequency analysis cannot be used to approximate a signal whose properties change over time. To address this problem a time varying feature representation is necessary for analysis to extract useful infomration from the signal. As a consequence Wavelet coefficients were computed using discrete and continuous wavelet transforms. Furthermore, the classification performance of the above three feature sets were investigated for the two classes (Normal and Abnormal). Results showed wavelet analysis compared to AR modeling and cepstrum analysis is a better assessment in finding EMG abnormalities during sleep. However, these methods may be useful in distinguishing EMG patterns that predict the emergence of Parkinson disease in humans.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207