Cross-day analysis of Multicode Surface Electromyography based Biometrics for Personal Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, surface electromyography (sEMG) has emerged as a novel biometric trait for personal identification, potentially providing a superior spoof-resistant solution over existing traits. The sEMG possesses a unique dual-mode security: they differ between individuals (biometric-mode), and different gestures have different sEMG characteristics (knowledge-mode). To leverage the knowledge-mode facet of the dual-mode security, the previous studies have utilized a multicode framework involving the fusion of codes (gestures), however, the analysis involved data recorded on a single day and from a small subject-pool. In this study, wrist EMG data collected from 43 participants over three different days while performing static hand/wrist gestures was utilized in two cross-day analyses, where the training and testing data were from different days. Three levels of fusion, score, rank, and decision were investigated to determine the optimal fusion scheme. The results showed that the score-level fusion scheme resulted in a median rank-1 accuracy of 77.9% and rank-5 accuracy of 99.6%, all significantly higher (p<0.001) than the respective single-code gesture. Our results showed that the multicode sEMG biometric framework provides superior identification performance in a more realistic cross-day scenario.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".