ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2021
InverseMuscleNET: Alternative Machine Learning Solution to Static Optimization and Inverse Muscle Modeling.
Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- From intradiscal pressure to multimodal estimation of lumbar spinal loads.Biomedical journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Model-Based Mid-Level Regulation for Assist-As-Needed Hierarchical Control of Wearable Robots: A Computational Study of Human-Robot Adaptation.Robotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
InverseMuscleNET, a machine learning model, is proposed as an alternative to static optimization for resolving the redundancy issue in inverse muscle models. A recurrent neural network (RNN) was optimally configured, trained, and tested to estimate the pattern of muscle activation signals. Five biomechanical variables (joint angle, joint velocity, joint acceleration, joint torque, and activation torque) were used as inputs to the RNN. A set of surface electromyography (EMG) signals, experimentally measured around the shoulder joint for flexion/extension, were used to train and validate the RNN model. The obtained machine learning model yields a normalized regression in the range of 88-91% between experimental data and estimated muscle activation. A sequential backward selection algorithm was used as a sensitivity analysis to discover the less dominant inputs. The order of most essential signals to least dominant ones was as follows: joint angle, activation torque, joint torque, joint velocity, and joint acceleration. The RNN model required 0.06 s of the previous biomechanical input signals and 0.01 s of the predicted feedback EMG signals, demonstrating the dynamic temporal relationships of the muscle activation profiles. The proposed approach permits a fast and direct estimation ability instead of iterative solutions for the inverse muscle model. It raises the possibility of integrating such a model in a real-time device for functional rehabilitation and sports evaluation devices with real-time estimation and tracking. This method provides clinicians with a means of estimating EMG activity without an invasive electrode setup.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.