| Literature DB >> 36159693 |
Wei Lu1,2, Lifu Gao1,2, Huibin Cao1,2, Zebin Li1,2,3, Daqing Wang1.
Abstract
Rapid and accurate prediction of interaction force is an effective way to enhance the compliant control performance. However, whether individual muscles or a combination of muscles is more suitable for interaction force prediction under different contraction tasks is of great importance in the compliant control of the wearable assisted robot. In this article, a novel algorithm that is based on sEMG and KPCA-DRSN is proposed to explore the relationship between interaction force prediction and sEMG signals. Furthermore, the contribution of each muscle to the interaction force is assessed based on the predicted results. First of all, the experimental platform for obtaining the sEMG is described. Then, the raw sEMG signal of different muscles is collected from the upper arm during different contractions. Meanwhile, the output force is collected by the force sensor. The Kernel Principal Component Analysis (KPCA) method is adopted to remove the invalid components of the raw sEMG signal. After that, the processed sequence is fed into the Deep Residual Shrinkage Network (DRSN) to predict the interaction force. Finally, based on the prediction results, the contribution of each sEMG signal from different muscles to the interaction force is evaluated by the mean impact value (MIV) indicator. The experimental results demonstrate that our methods can automatically extract the valid features of sEMG signal and provided fast and efficient prediction. In addition, the single muscle with the largest MIV index could predict the interaction force faster and more accurately than the muscle combination in different contraction tasks. The finding of our research provides a solid evidence base for the compliant control of the wearable robot.Entities:
Keywords: deep residual shrinkage network; interaction force prediction; kernel principal component analysis; mean impact value; surface electromyography
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159693 PMCID: PMC9491850 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.970859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Residual block structure diagram.
FIGURE 2The outline of our approach.
FIGURE 3Deep residual shrinkage network structure diagram.
FIGURE 4SENet network structure.
FIGURE 5Detail of RSBU-CS unit structure.
The physical parameters of each subject.
| Subject | Gender | Age | Mass (kg) | Height (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Male | 23 | 75 | 178 |
| A2 | Male | 24 | 80 | 182 |
| A3 | Male | 22 | 82 | 175 |
| A4 | Female | 27 | 55 | 163 |
| A5 | Female | 23 | 50 | 160 |
FIGURE 6The experimental platform.
FIGURE 7Cumulative contribution rate of the component.
FIGURE 8The raw EMG signal of the four channels and measured force.
FIGURE 9Comparison of interaction force prediction results under different features.
Prediction results of different features for each subject.
| Number | Interaction force | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMS(N) | MAVE(N) |
| ||
| Subjects 1 | MAV | 0.87 | 0.57 | 99.32 |
| VAR | 1.26 | 1.23 | 98.55 | |
| ZC | 2.69 | 1.64 | 96.23 | |
| WA | 1.30 | 1.03 | 98.35 | |
| Ours | 0.82 | 0.56 | 99.29 | |
| Subjects 2 | MAV | 0.76 | 0.59 | 99.67 |
| VAR | 1.37 | 1.12 | 98.82 | |
| ZC | 2.81 | 1.39 | 96.90 | |
| WA | 1.38 | 1.01 | 98.03 | |
| Ours | 0.71 | 0.55 | 99.58 | |
| Subjects 3 | MAV | 0.70 | 0.65 | 99.53 |
| VAR | 1.44 | 1.08 | 98.21 | |
| ZC | 2.76 | 1.54 | 97.12 | |
| WA | 1.41 | 0.98 | 98.65 | |
| Ours | 0.68 | 0.67 | 99.51 | |
| Subjects 4 | MAV | 0.74 | 0.62 | 99.34 |
| VAR | 1.38 | 0.95 | 98.78 | |
| ZC | 2.72 | 1.59 | 96.12 | |
| WA | 1.47 | 0.94 | 98.76 | |
| Ours | 0.70 | 0.61 | 99.29 | |
| Subjects 5 | MAV | 0.70 | 0.57 | 99.45 |
| VAR | 1.41 | 1.05 | 98.70 | |
| ZC | 2.68 | 1.55 | 96.51 | |
| WA | 1.31 | 0.90 | 98.68 | |
| Ours | 0.66 | 0.54 | 99.41 | |
MSE comparison of different algorithms.
| Movement | State-of-the-art algorithms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | Informer | LSTM | Ours | |
| Flexion | 0.135 | 0.094 | 0.052 | 0.042 |
| Extension | 0.214 | 0.102 | 0.083 | 0.071 |
| Pronation | 0.199 | 0.195 | 0.054 | 0.069 |
| Rotation | 0.254 | 0.124 | 0.089 | 0.077 |
Prediction time comparison of different algorithms.
| Movement | State-of-the-art algorithms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | Informer | LSTM | Ours | |
| Flexion | 0.0356 | 0.0145 | 0.0098 | 0.0058 |
| Extension | 0.0391 | 0.0215 | 0.0082 | 0.0049 |
| Pronation | 0.0489 | 0.0345 | 0.0096 | 0.0051 |
| Rotation | 0.0432 | 0.0298 | 0.0082 | 0.0055 |
MSE comparison with 5 db noise among different algorithms.
| Movement | SNR (db) | State-of-the-art algorithms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | Informer | LSTM | Ours | ||
| Flexion | 5 | 0.598 | 0.359 | 0.248 | 0.095 |
| Extension | 5 | 0.631 | 0.487 | 0.378 | 0.121 |
| Pronation | 5 | 0.689 | 0.496 | 0.548 | 0.215 |
| Rotation | 5 | 0.732 | 0.498 | 0.568 | 0.326 |
FIGURE 10The comparison of interaction force prediction results of different algorithms.
FIGURE 11MSE index comparison results of different algorithms.
FIGURE 12Frequency domain analysis in the relaxed state.
FIGURE 13Frequency domain analysis in the static state.
FIGURE 14Prediction Results of Individual Muscle and Combined muscle Under Different Tasks.
FIGURE 15Heat map of individual muscles contribution.