Linear versus Nonlinear Muscle Networks: A Case Study to Decode Hidden Synergistic Patterns During Dynamic Lower-limb Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, for the first time, compares the behaviors of nonlinear versus linear muscle networks in decoding hidden peripheral synergistic neural patterns during dynamic functional tasks. In this paper, we report a case study during which one healthy subject conducts a series of four lower limb repetitive tasks. Specifically, the paper focuses on tasks that involve the right knee joint, including walking, sit-tostand, stepping, and drop-jump. Twelve muscles were recorded using the Delsys Trigno system. The linear muscle network was generated using coherence analysis, and the nonlinear network was generated using Spearman's correlation. The results show that the degree, clustering coefficient, and global efficiency of the muscle network have the highest value among tasks in the linear domain for the walking task, while a low linear synergistic network behavior for the sit-to-stand is observed. On the other hand, the results show that the nonlinear functional muscle network decodes high connectivity (degree) and clustering coefficient and efficiency for the sit-tostand when compared with other tasks. We have also developed a two-dimensional functional connectivity plane composed of linear and nonlinear features and shown that it can span the lower-limb dynamic task space. The results of this paper for the first time highlight the importance of observing both linear and nonlinear connectivity patterns, especially for complex dynamic tasks. It should also be noted that through a simultaneous EEG recording (using BrainVision System), we have shown that, indeed, cortical activity may indirectly explain highly-connected nonlinear muscle network for the sit-to-stand task, highlighting the importance of nonlinear muscle network as a neurophysiological window of observation beyond the periphery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".