Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Activities of Daily Living Classification with Electromyographic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in data science and wearable robotic devices present an opportunity to improve rehabilitation outcomes. Some of these devices incorporate electromyography (EMG) electrodes that sense physiological patient activity, making it possible to develop rehabilitation systems able to assess the patient's progress when performing activities of daily living (ADLs). However, additional research is needed to improve the ability to interpret EMG signals. To address this issue, an off-line classification approach for the 26 upper-limb ADLs included in the KIN-MUS UJI dataset is presented in this paper. The ADLs were performed by 22 subjects, while seven EMG signals were recorded from their forearms. From variable-length EMG time windows, 18 features were computed, and 13 features more were extracted from frequency domain windows. The classification performance of five different machine learning techniques, including Support Vector Machines (SVM), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) network, XGBoost, and Random Forests, were compared. CNN performed best amongst individual models, with an accuracy above 80%, compared to SVM with 77%, GRU with 73.9%, and the tree-based models below 64%. Ensemble learning with four CNN models achieved an even higher accuracy of 86%. These results suggest that the CNN ensemble model is capable of classifying EMG signals for most ADLs, which could be used in off-line quantitative assessment of robotic rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".