SparseEMG: Computational Design of Sparse EMG Layouts for Sensing Gestures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gesture recognition with electromyography (EMG) is a complex problem influenced by gesture sets, electrode count and placement, and machine learning parameters (e.g., features, classifiers). Most existing toolkits focus on streamlining model development but overlook the impact of electrode selection on classification accuracy. In this work, we present the first data-driven analysis of how electrode selection and classifier choice affect both accuracy and sparsity. Through a systematic evaluation of 28 combinations (4 selection schemes, 7 classifiers), across six datasets, we identify an approach that minimizes electrode count without compromising accuracy. The results show that Permutation Importance (selection scheme) with Random Forest (classifier) reduces the number of electrodes by 53.5\%. Based on these findings, we introduce SparseEMG, a design tool that generates sparse electrode layouts based on user-selected gesture sets, electrode constraints, and ML parameters while also predicting classification performance. SparseEMG supports 50+ unique gestures and is validated in three real-world applications using different hardware setups. Results from our multi-dataset evaluation show that the layouts generated from the SparseEMG design tool are transferable across users with only minimal variation in gesture recognition performance.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".