| Literature DB >> 22163810 |
Mohamed R Al-Mulla1, Francisco Sepulveda, Martin Colley.
Abstract
Muscle fatigue is an established area of research and various types of muscle fatigue have been investigated in order to fully understand the condition. This paper gives an overview of the various non-invasive techniques available for use in automated fatigue detection, such as mechanomyography, electromyography, near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound for both isometric and non-isometric contractions. Various signal analysis methods are compared by illustrating their applicability in real-time settings. This paper will be of interest to researchers who wish to select the most appropriate methodology for research on muscle fatigue detection or prediction, or for the development of devices that can be used in, e.g., sports scenarios to improve performance or prevent injury. To date, research on localised muscle fatigue focuses mainly on the clinical side. There is very little research carried out on the implementation of detecting/predicting fatigue using an autonomous system, although recent research on automating the process of localised muscle fatigue detection/prediction shows promising results.Entities:
Keywords: classification; feature extraction; muscle fatigue; sEMG
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22163810 PMCID: PMC3231314 DOI: 10.3390/s110403545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Experimental setup for an autonomous system to detect or predict fatigue.
Labelling criteria for the movement aspects.
| Movement aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Goniometer entropy | Drop in entropy |
| Force gauge entropy | Drop in entropy |
| Goniometer | Vertical belly development of goniometer signal during a trial |
| Button presses (0–3)(Changed facial/body cues) | Modified Moore-Garg Strain Index |
Figure 2.Movement aspects from one of the trials which aided in labelling the sEMG signal.
10 point scale index.
| Scale | Perceived exertion |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing at all |
| 0.5 | Extremely week |
| 1 | Very weak |
| 2 | Weak |
| 2.5 | Moderate |
| 3 | ” |
| 4 | ” |
| 5 | Strong |
| 6 | ” |
| 7 | Very strong |
| 8 | ” |
| 9 | ” |
| 10 | Extremely strong |
Modified Moore-Garg Strain index.
| Observation | Button presses |
|---|---|
| Barely noticeable effort | 0 |
| Obvious effort (unchanged facial cues) | 1 |
| Substantial effort, use of shoulder and changed facial cues | 2 |
| Use of shoulder, trunk or whole body for force application | 3 |
Rule base for signal labelling.
| Rules | IF Input 1 (Elbow Angle) | IF Input 2 (Angle Oscillation) | THEN Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Non-Fatigue | Low | Non-Fatigue |
| 2 | Non-Fatigue | High | Transition-to-Fatigue |
| 3 | Transition-to-Fatigue | Low | Transition-to-Fatigue |
| 4 | Transition-to-Fatigue | High | Transition-to-Fatigue |
| 5 | Fatigue | Low | Fatigue |
| 6 | Fatigue | High | Fatigue |
Figure 3.The use of elbow angle to label and classify the signal.
Figure 4.The use of angular oscillation to label and classify the signal.
Adapted Moore-Garg Strain Index, (Bernard, 2001).
| Observation | %MVC |
|---|---|
| Barely noticeable or relaxed effort | 5 |
| Noticeable or defined effort | 20 |
| Obvious effort; unchanged facial expression | 40 |
| Substantial effort; changed facial expression | 65 |
| Use of shoulder, trunk or whole body for force application | 90 |