MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of interpolation methods for EMG arrays

2022· article· en· W4283723687 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Farago, Adrian D. C. Chan

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Spline interpolationLinear interpolationTrilinear interpolationElectrodeMultivariate interpolationSpline (mechanical)Nearest-neighbor interpolationComputer scienceMathematicsBilinear interpolationMaterials scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-density electromyography (HD-EMG) arrays are useful for studying muscle activation in a spatial dimension. This paper studies interpolation techniques for the reconstruction of missing or poor quality channels within an HD-EMG array. Linear, cubic, spline, and nearest-neighbour interpolation methods were evaluated for both 1D (linear) and 2D (array) electrode configurations surrounding a target electrode. The quality of interpolations was measured using the percent residual difference and correlation. For basic 2D electrode configurations, the 2D spline method provided the best results. For 1D configurations, spline interpolation with electrodes selected perpendicular to the muscle fiber was preferable. For sparse electrode arrays, obtained by using every other electrode row/column, the best interpolation method was cubic interpolation over 8 electrodes. Spline interpolation was more sensitive to differences between the EMG from the electrodes used in the interpolation and the EMG in the target electrode; differences became more pronounced in the sparse array configurations. Low interpolation quality was associated with both poor quality channels and regions of transition between high and low activity in the electrode array. Results indicate there is a potential to use interpolation to both identify and reconstruct poor channels in HD-EMG arrays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC)Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207