ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
The trade-off between maximizing reconstruction and physiological interpretation of muscle synergies with autoencoders.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In neuroscience, the muscle synergy method is a widely known computational approach for studying motor control from electromyographic (EMG) recordings. Standard algorithms for synergy extraction rely on a linearity assumption for synergy combination. However, the interactions between muscle groups and movement dynamics often exhibit non-linear characteristics, suggesting the need for alternative approaches. In this context, autoencoders (AEs) have been proposed as promising tools. However, previous studies focused on the reconstruction accuracy optimization and not on the structure of the synergies, and the influence of AE design parameters has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to explore the impact of different activation functions on the effectiveness of AEs. Methods: To this end, we used a rich dataset of upper-limb EMG signals recorded from 16 muscles in 15 participants performing reaching movements toward 9 targets across 5 planes. We evaluated the effects of combining four activation functions in the encoder and decoder layers-linear, ReLU, sigmoid, and tanh-and compared to standard non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). Results: Our findings show that the extracted synergies are highly sensitive to the AE architecture. Notably, the configurations obtaining the best signal reconstruction do not correspond to the most physiologically meaningful synergies, which were instead achieved with the ReLU+tanh configuration. Discussion: This suggests that optimizing reconstruction accuracy may result in non-interpretable synergy structures. This research emphasizes the role of non-linear techniques in extracting muscle synergy from different datasets (e.g., lower limbs, full-body movements, patient populations) and identifies the optimal combination of transfer functions for the encoder and decoder layers.
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.