| Literature DB >> 35746432 |
Zebin Li1,2,3, Lifu Gao1,2, Wei Lu1,2, Daqing Wang1, Huibin Cao1, Gang Zhang3.
Abstract
During lower-extremity rehabilitation training, muscle activity status needs to be monitored in real time to adjust the assisted force appropriately, but it is a challenging task to obtain muscle force noninvasively. Mechanomyography (MMG) signals offer unparalleled advantages over sEMG, reflecting the intention of human movement while being noninvasive. Therefore, in this paper, based on MMG, a combined scheme of gray relational analysis (GRA) and support vector regression optimized by an improved cuckoo search algorithm (ICS-SVR) is proposed to estimate the knee joint extension force. Firstly, the features reflecting muscle activity comprehensively, such as time-domain features, frequency-domain features, time-frequency-domain features, and nonlinear dynamics features, were extracted from MMG signals, and the relational degree was calculated using the GRA method to obtain the correlation features with high relatedness to the knee joint extension force sequence. Then, a combination of correlated features with high relational degree was input into the designed ICS-SVR model for muscle force estimation. The experimental results show that the evaluation indices of the knee joint extension force estimation obtained by the combined scheme of GRA and ICS-SVR were superior to other regression models and could estimate the muscle force with higher estimation accuracy. It is further demonstrated that the proposed scheme can meet the need of muscle force estimation required for rehabilitation devices, powered prostheses, etc.Entities:
Keywords: MMG; gray relational analysis; improved cuckoo search algorithm; machine learning; muscle force estimation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746432 PMCID: PMC9231143 DOI: 10.3390/s22124651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1The block diagram of knee joint extension force estimation.
Figure 2The procedure of ICS-SVR.
Parameter values in the four optimization algorithms with a population size of 20.
| Algorithm | Parameter |
|---|---|
| PSO | c1 = c2 = 1, k = 0.5, wV = 0.9, wP = 0.9 |
| GWO | r1, r2 ∈ (0, 1), a ∈ (0, 2) |
| CS |
|
| ICS |
|
PSO = particle swarm optimization algorithm; GWO = gray wolf optimization algorithm; CS = cuckoo search algorithm; ICS = improved cuckoo search algorithm.
Figure 3The search space of the four test benchmark functions.
Figure 4Comparison of convergence curves of the four algorithms for the four test benchmark functions.
Results of optimization algorithms for solving four benchmark functions with D = 2.
| Test Function | Algorithm | Optimal | Worst | Average | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenbrock function | PSO | 0.0142 | 3.9689 | 1.0774 | 1.0380 |
| GWO | 4.377 × 10−7 | 2.503 × 10−4 | 2.383 × 10−5 | 4.341 × 10−5 | |
| CS | 1.389 × 10−13 | 3.605 × 10−4 | 7.822 × 10−6 | 5.093 × 10−5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Griewank function | PSO | 0.3838 | 13.0372 | 1.7129 | 1.8178 |
| GWO | 0 | 0.0271 | 0.0054 | 0.0056 | |
| CS | 9.678 × 10−7 | 0.0089 | 0.0044 | 0.0031 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cross-in-tray function | PSO | −2.0622 | −1.8755 | −2.0260 | 0.0438 |
| GWO | −2.0626 | −2.0626 | −2.0626 | 1.257 × 10−7 | |
| CS | −2.0626 | −2.0626 | −2.0626 | 6.519 × 10−11 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Schaffer function | PSO | 0.0113 | 0.2443 | 0.0940 | 0.0391 |
| GWO | 0 | 0.0851 | 0.0204 | 0.0367 | |
| CS | 4.749 × 10−7 | 0.0851 | 0.0019 | 0.0120 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PSO = particle swarm optimization algorithm; GWO = gray wolf optimization algorithm; CS = cuckoo search algorithm; ICS = improved cuckoo search algorithm.
Figure 5GRA analysis of MMG features of subject S1.
Estimated results of different feature combinations of subject S1.
| Combination | RMSE | MAPE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Feature combination A | 0.1768 | 0.0405 | 0.9963 |
| Feature combination B | 0.7493 | 0.0377 | 0.9954 |
| Feature combination C | 0.1611 | 0.0416 | 0.9946 |
| Feature combination D |
|
|
|
| Feature combination E | 0.4282 | 0.0327 | 0.9957 |
RMSE = root-mean-square error; MAPE = mean absolute percentage error; R = correlation coefficient.
Figure 6Results of knee joint extension force estimation for subject S1 with feature combination D.
Results of the knee joint extension force estimation for the five subjects with feature sequences of different feature combinations.
| Combination | RMSE ± SD | MAPE ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feature combination A | 0.7511 ± 0.7645 | 0.0550 ± 0.0120 | 0.9937 ± 0.0042 |
| Feature combination B | 0.6012 ± 0.3840 | 0.0604 ± 0.0190 | 0.9912 ± 0.0046 |
| Feature combination C | 0.6706 ± 0.5202 | 0.0649 ± 0.0241 | 0.9920 ± 0.0026 |
| Feature combination D |
|
|
|
| Feature combination E | 0.8214 ± 0.6718 | 0.0644 ± 0.0464 | 0.9916 ± 0.0059 |
Values are the mean ± SD.
Comparison of the estimation results for S1 using different models.
| Model | RMSE | MAPE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 0.3952 ± 0.3246 | 0.0361 ± 0.0064 | 0.9954 ± 0.0012 |
| ELM | 1.0464 ± 0.6673 | 0.1071 ± 0.0190 | 0.9681 ± 0.0130 |
| CS-SVR | 0.1424 ± 0.0274 | 0.0358 ± 0.0026 | 0.9923 ± 0.0008 |
| ICS-SVR |
|
|
|
BPNN = backpropagation neural network; ELM = extreme learning machine; CS-SVR = support vector regression optimized by cuckoo search algorithm; ICS-SVR = support vector regression optimized by the improved cuckoo search algorithm.
Figure 7Statistical analysis of knee joint extension force estimation with different regression models. (a) The R-value of the force estimation against the actual observed values. (b) The RMSE of the force estimation against the actual observed values. (c) The MAPE of the force estimation against the actual observed values.
Comparison of the estimation results for the five subjects using different models.
| Model | RMSE | MAPE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| BPNN | 0.4706 ± 0.1299 | 0.0575 ± 0.0241 | 0.9919 ± 0.0022 |
| ELM | 2.5252 ± 0.9507 | 0.2223 ± 0.0822 | 0.9137 ± 0.0341 |
| CS-SVR | 0.2673 ± 0.1061 | 0.0603 ± 0.0193 | 0.9932 ± 0.0011 |
| ICS-SVR |
|
|
|
Values are the mean ± SD.