Towards Wearable Electromyography for Personalized Musculoskeletal Trunk Models using an Inverse Synergy-based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electromyography (EMG)-driven musculoskeletal models (EMS) of the trunk are used for estimating lumbosacral joint moments and compressive loads during lifting tasks. These models provide personalized estimates of the parameters using information from many sensors. However, to advance technology from labs to workplaces, there is a need for sensor reduction to improve wearability and applicability. Therefore we introduce an EMG sensor reduction approach based on inverse synergy extrapolation, to reconstruct unmeasured EMG signals for different box-lifting techniques. 12 participants performed an array of tasks (squat, stoop, unilateral twist and bilateral twist) with different weights (0 kg, 7.5 kg and 15 kg). We found that two synergies were sufficient to explain the different lifting tasks (median variance accounted for of 0.91). Building upon this, we used two sensors at optimal subject-specific muscle locations to reconstruct the EMG of four unmeasured channels. Evaluation of the reconstructed and reference EMG showed median coefficients of determination ( R 2 ) between 0.70 and 0.86, with median root mean squared errors (RMSE) ranging from 0.02 to 0.04 relative to maximal voluntary contraction. This indicates that our proposed method shows promise for sensor reduction for driving a trunk EMS for ambulatory biomechanical risk assessment in occupational settings and exoskeleton control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".