MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323569095 · doi:10.3390/s23062927

Reducing Noise, Artifacts and Interference in Single-Channel EMG Signals: A Review

2023· review· en· W4323569095 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianne Boyer, Laurent J. Bouyer, Jean‐Sébastien Roy, Alexandre Campeau‐Lecours

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceNoise (video)Noise reductionFocus (optics)Interference (communication)ElectromyographySubtractionSignal processingArtificial intelligenceChannel (broadcasting)Pattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionDigital signal processingMedicineTelecommunicationsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer hardwareMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromyography (EMG) is gaining importance in many research and clinical applications, including muscle fatigue detection, control of robotic mechanisms and prostheses, clinical diagnosis of neuromuscular diseases and quantification of force. However, EMG signals can be contaminated by various types of noise, interference and artifacts, leading to potential data misinterpretation. Even assuming best practices, the acquired signal may still contain contaminants. The aim of this paper is to review methods employed to reduce the contamination of single channel EMG signals. Specifically, we focus on methods which enable a full reconstruction of the EMG signal without loss of information. This includes subtraction methods used in the time domain, denoising methods performed after the signal decomposition and hybrid approaches that combine multiple methods. Finally, this paper provides a discussion on the suitability of the individual methods based on the type of contaminant(s) present in the signal and the specific requirements of the application.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207