Effects of Image Normalization on CNN-Based EEG–EMG Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise in popularity of wearable robotic devices has brought many opportunities in the area of assistive devices for rehabilitation. However, despite their numerous advantages, these wearable mechatronic devices are not widely adopted due to a poor interaction between the device and the wearer. To solve this issue, several studies have proposed the use of sensor fusion of electroencephalography (EEG) and electromyography (EMG) signals using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to detect the motion intention of the user and control the wearable device. Although normalization techniques can be applied during data pre-processing in order to improve performance, the correct normalization methods to apply for combined EEG and EMG data are unknown, hindering the potential improvement of the resulting CNN models. Therefore, in this study, no normalization, subject-wise, speed-wise, image-wise, and channel-wise normalization methods were compared. The effectiveness of these methods was tested on the overall and speed specific accuracies of CNN models trained using a database of combined EEG–EMG data collected during elbow flexion–extension motions at different speeds. The results of this study showed that no normalization improved the performance of the overall accuracy of CNN models, with grouped spectrogram-based models achieving an accuracy of 81.57 ± 7.11%. A similar trend was found for speed specific accuracies, in which no normalization showed to be a slightly better option during slow motions. Overall, these results provide information on the different tools that can be used to improve the performance of CNN-based models used for the control of wearable robotic devices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".