| Literature DB >> 27548165 |
Nurhazimah Nazmi1,2, Mohd Azizi Abdul Rahman3, Shin-Ichiroh Yamamoto4, Siti Anom Ahmad5, Hairi Zamzuri6, Saiful Amri Mazlan7.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been major interest in the exposure to physical therapy during rehabilitation. Several publications have demonstrated its usefulness in clinical/medical and human machine interface (HMI) applications. An automated system will guide the user to perform the training during rehabilitation independently. Advances in engineering have extended electromyography (EMG) beyond the traditional diagnostic applications to also include applications in diverse areas such as movement analysis. This paper gives an overview of the numerous methods available to recognize motion patterns of EMG signals for both isotonic and 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 would like to select the most appropriate methodology in classifying motion patterns, especially during different types of contractions. For feature extraction, the probability density function (PDF) of EMG signals will be the main interest of this study. Following that, a brief explanation of the different methods for pre-processing, feature extraction and classifying EMG signals will be compared in terms of their performance. The crux of this paper is to review the most recent developments and research studies related to the issues mentioned above.Entities:
Keywords: EMG signals; classifications; feature extractions; isometric contractions; isotonic contractions; probability density functions
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27548165 PMCID: PMC5017469 DOI: 10.3390/s16081304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Block diagram in a control system using a gait pattern generator and EMG signals adopted from [1].
Figure 2Schematic illustration of repolarization/depolarization cycle within excitable membranes.
Figure 3Different types of muscle contractions based on muscle force and length.
Figure 4A series of isometric contractions performed at different muscle lengths.
Figure 5An overview in developing EMG control systems.
Time domain features.
| Features | Abbreviation | References |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated EMG | IEMG | [ |
| Mean Absolute Value | MAV | [ |
| Modified mean absolute value 1 | MAV1 | [ |
| Modified mean absolute value 2 | MAV2 | [ |
| Root Mean Square | RMS | [ |
| Variance | VAR | [ |
| Waveform length | WL | [ |
| Zero crossing | ZC | [ |
| Slope sign change | SSC | [ |
| Willison amplitude or Wilson amplitude | WAMP | [ |
| Kurtosis | KURT | [ |
| Skewness | SKEW | [ |
| Moving Approximate Entropy | moving ApEn | [ |
| Fuzzy approximate entropy | fApEn | [ |
| Simple square integral | SSI | [ |
| v-Order | V | [ |
| Log detector | LOG | [ |
| Average amplitude change | AAC | [ |
| Difference absolute standard deviation value | DASDV | [ |
| Mean absolute value slope | MAVSLP | [ |
| Multiple hamming windows | MHW | [ |
| Multiple trapezoidal windows | MTW | [ |
| Histogram of EMG | HIST | [ |
| Auto-regressive coefficients | AR | [ |
| Cepstral coefficients | [ | |
| Standard deviation | SD | [ |
| Cepstral coefficients | CC | [ |
| Sample entropy | SampEn | [ |
| Integral absolute value | IAV | [ |
| Variance | VAR | [ |
| Maximum amplitude | MAX | [ |
Frequency domain features.
| Features | Abbreviation | References |
|---|---|---|
| Mean frequency | MNF | [ |
| Median frequency | MDF | [ |
| Mean power frequency | MNP | [ |
| Peak frequency | PKF | [ |
| Total power | TTP | [ |
| Frequency ratio | FR | [ |
| Power spectrum ratio | PSR | [ |
| The power spectrum deformation | Ω | [ |
| Variance of central frequency | VCF | [ |
| Signal-to-motion artifact ratio | SMR | [ |
| Signal-to-noise ratio | SNR | [ |
| Spectral moment | SM | [ |
| Energy | EN | [ |
| Wavelet decomposition | WDC | [ |
| Wavelet decomposition difference | WDCDIF | [ |
| Modified mean frequency | MMNF | [ |
| Modified median frequencies | MMDF | [ |
| Short Time Fourier transform | STFT | [ |
Time Frequency domain features.
| Features | Abbreviation | References |
|---|---|---|
| Discrete Wavelet Transform | DWT | [ |
| Continous Wavelet Transform | CWT | [ |
| Empirical Mode Decomposition | EMD | [ |
| Wavelet Packet Transform | WPT | [ |
The mean of the MAE features of each theoretical PDF for each percentile load level condition.
| Maximum Voluntary Contraction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20% | 40% | 60% | 80% | 100% | |
| Normal | 0.0036 | 0.0025 | 0.0024 | 0.0022 | 0.0028 |
| Laplace | 0.0081 | 0.0075 | 0.0076 | 0.0077 | 0.0071 |
| Cauchy | 0.0129 | 0.0123 | 0.0123 | 0.0124 | 0.0122 |
| Logistic | 0.0027 | 0.0012 | 0.0009 | 0.0011 | 0.0015 |
Comparison PDF of EMG signals.
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Gaussian | [ |
| Cauchy | [ |
| Laplace | [ |
| Logistic | [ |
| GEV | [ |
Figure 6Basic shapes of each distribution.
Figure 7General block diagram for FL systems [35].
The classification accuracy based on training functions [98].
| Training | Stop | Regression | Time | Classification Rate | Hidden | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | Epochs | Elapsed | Training | Validation | Test | Overall | Neurons | |
| Levenberg | 15 | 0.8597 | 1.047 | 88.6 | 83.3 | 90 | 88 | 10 |
| 18 | 0.87251 | 0.921 | 94.3 | 66.7 | 80 | 88 | ||
| 16 | 0.87401 | 0.8721 | 88.7 | 90.3 | 90.3 | 89.2 | ||
| Average | 0.86874 | 0.947 | 90.533 | 80.1 | 86.767 | 88.4 | ||
| 33 | 0.85706 | 2.797 | 91.4 | 70 | 83.3 | 87 | 20 | |
| 14 | 0.85508 | 1.218 | 90 | 80 | 86.7 | 88 | ||
| 12 | 0.84772 | 1.094 | 92.9 | 76.7 | 83.3 | 89 | ||
| Average | 0.853287 | 1.703 | 91.433 | 75.567 | 84.433 | 88 | ||
| 16 | 0.86112 | 2.36 | 92.1 | 80 | 76.7 | 88 | 30 | |
| 11 | 0.85018 | 1.703 | 91.4 | 90 | 73.3 | 88.5 | ||
| 14 | 0.85192 | 2.125 | 89.3 | 76.7 | 83.3 | 86.5 | ||
| Average | 0.854107 | 2.0627 | 90.933 | 82.233 | 77.767 | 87.667 | ||
| Scaled | 37 | 0.7819 | 0.703 | 80.7 | 83.3 | 83.3 | 82.43 | 10 |
| 27 | 0.7632 | 0.685 | 78.2 | 86 | 74.5 | 79.57 | ||
| 32 | 0.7904 | 0.823 | 82.4 | 71.9 | 79.4 | 77.9 | ||
| Average | 0.77917 | 0.737 | 80.433 | 80.4 | 79.067 | 79.9 | ||
| 31 | 0.802 | 0.797 | 78.6 | 90 | 82.7 | 83.77 | 20 | |
| 35 | 0.8153 | 1.252 | 79 | 87.3 | 78.1 | 81.47 | ||
| 34 | 0.79842 | 1.063 | 84.3 | 76.7 | 80 | 80.33 | ||
| Average | 0.80524 | 1.037 | 80.633 | 84.667 | 80.267 | 81.86 | ||
| 34 | 0.80767 | 2.457 | 83.6 | 83.3 | 86.7 | 84.53 | 30 | |
| 28 | 0.79215 | 1.073 | 81.2 | 72.1 | 69.5 | 74.27 | ||
| 31 | 0.82531 | 1.352 | 86.6 | 76.5 | 78.8 | 80.63 | ||
| Average | 0.80837 | 1.627 | 80.433 | 80.4 | 79.067 | 79.9 | ||
Comparison of classification accuracy.
| Authors | Feature Extraction | Classifier | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | TD | ANFIS | 86% |
| [ | TD | LDA | 98.87% |
| [ | TD | SVM | 73% |
| [ | TD | LDA | 91.64 % |
| [ | TD | FL | 97% |
| [ | TD | ANN | 89.2% |
| [ | TFD | SVM | 90% |
| [ | TFD | LDA | 93.75% |
| [ | TFD | ANFIS | 92% |
| [ | TD | ANN | 88.4% |
| [ | TFD | PSO-SVM | 96.75% |