| Literature DB >> 30297994 |
Iris Kyranou1,2,3, Sethu Vijayakumar1,2, Mustafa Suphi Erden1,3.
Abstract
Surface Electromyography (EMG)-based pattern recognition methods have been investigated over the past years as a means of controlling upper limb prostheses. Despite the very good reported performance of myoelectric controlled prosthetic hands in lab conditions, real-time performance in everyday life conditions is not as robust and reliable, explaining the limited clinical use of pattern recognition control. The main reason behind the instability of myoelectric pattern recognition control is that EMG signals are non-stationary in real-life environments and present a lot of variability over time and across subjects, hence affecting the system's performance. This can be the result of one or many combined changes, such as muscle fatigue, electrode displacement, difference in arm posture, user adaptation on the device over time and inter-subject singularity. In this paper an extensive literature review is performed to present the causes of the drift of EMG signals, ways of detecting them and possible techniques to counteract for their effects in the application of upper limb prostheses. The suggested techniques are organized in a table that can be used to recognize possible problems in the clinical application of EMG-based pattern recognition methods for upper limb prosthesis applications and state-of-the-art methods to deal with such problems.Entities:
Keywords: EMG concept drift; EMG drifts; EMG variability between users; EMG variability with time; electromyography; upper limb prostheses applications
Year: 2018 PMID: 30297994 PMCID: PMC6160857 DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurorobot ISSN: 1662-5218 Impact factor: 2.650
Causes of EMG drifts; how to detect and model them and approaches to mitigate them.
| Fatigue | Stulen and Luca, | + | + | + | |||
| De Luca and Van Dyk, | + | + | + | ||||
| Merletti et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Park and Meek, | + | + | |||||
| Enoka and Duchateau, | + | + | |||||
| Luttmann et al., | + | + | |||||
| Castellini et al., | + | + | |||||
| Artemiadis and Kyriakopoulos, | + | + | |||||
| Mainardi et al., | + | + | |||||
| Song et al., | + | ||||||
| Phinyomark et al., | |||||||
| Cifrek et al., | + | ||||||
| Cao et al., | + | ||||||
| Al-Mulla et al., | + | ||||||
| Tkach et al., | + | ||||||
| Ravier et al., | + | ||||||
| Electrode displacement | Hudgins et al., | + | |||||
| Hargrove et al., | + | + | + | + | |||
| Tkach et al., | + | + | |||||
| Young et al., | + | + | + | + | |||
| Boschmann and Platzner, | + | + | + | ||||
| Muceli et al., | + | + | |||||
| Fang and Liu, | + | ||||||
| Stango et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Pan et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Arm posture | Scheme et al., | + | + | + | |||
| Chen et al., | + | + | |||||
| Fougner et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Liu et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Khushaba et al., | + | + | + | + | |||
| Arm posture ( | Geng et al., | + | + | + | |||
| Jiang et al., | + | + | |||||
| Boschmann and Platzner, | + | ||||||
| Yang et al., | + | ||||||
| Betthauser et al., | + | ||||||
| Learning | Nishikawa et al., | + | |||||
| Yokoi et al., | + | + | |||||
| Mosier et al., | + | ||||||
| Kato et al., | + | + | |||||
| Zhang et al., | + | ||||||
| Radhakrishnan et al., | + | ||||||
| He et al., | + | ||||||
| Pistohl et al., | + | ||||||
| Antuvan et al., | + | ||||||
| Powell et al., | + | ||||||
| He et al., | + | + | |||||
| Ison et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Concept drift | Fukuda et al., | + | + | + | |||
| Bitzer and van der Smagt, | + | + | |||||
| Sensinger et al., | + | + | |||||
| Kaufmann et al., | + | + | |||||
| Artemiadis and Kyriakopoulos, | + | + | |||||
| Jain et al., | + | + | + | + | |||
| Amsuss et al., | + | ||||||
| Liu, | + | + | + | + | |||
| Liu et al., | + | + | |||||
| Tkach et al., | |||||||
| Zhang et al., | + | + | |||||
| Phinyomark et al., | + | ||||||
| Gijsberts et al., | + | + | |||||
| Vidovic et al., | + | ||||||
| Lock et al., | + | ||||||
| Simon et al., | + | ||||||
| Concept drift ( | Chen et al., | + | + | ||||
| Du et al., | + | + | |||||
| Zhai et al., | + | + | |||||
| Inter-subject variability | Orabona et al., | + | + | ||||
| Chattopadhyay et al., | + | ||||||
| Matsubara et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Gibson et al., | + | ||||||
| Ison and Artemiadis, | + | + | |||||
| Tommasi et al., | + | ||||||
| Khushaba, | + | + | + | ||||
| Phinyomark et al., | + | + | + | ||||
| Guo et al., | + | + | |||||
| Stival et al., | + | ||||||
Figure 1Graph representing algorithm in Luttmann et al. (2000). Increase of with shift of median frequency (MDF) to the higher frequencies corresponds to force increase whereas increase in amplitude and shift to the lower frequencies indicates muscle fatigue. Similarly a decrease of the with simultaneous shift to the lower frequencies of the median frequency indicates force decrease whereas shift to the higher frequencies recovery from fatigue.
Human motor learning stages and their motion and cognitive load characteristics.
| Cognitive | Slow, inconsistent, inefficient with large gains | High demand in cognitive load |
| Associative | Disjointed performance, more reliable & efficient, small gains | Requires less cognitive activity |
| Autonomous | Accurate, consistent, efficient, smooth | Unconscious - little or no cognitive load |