Cargando…

Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement

The surface electromyography (sEMG) technique is proposed for muscle activation detection and intuitive control of prostheses or robot arms. Motion recognition is widely used to map sEMG signals to the target motions. One of the main factors preventing the implementation of this kind of method for r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Shuxiang, Pang, Muye, Gao, Baofeng, Hirata, Hideyuki, Ishihara, Hidenori
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25894941
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s150409022
_version_ 1782371313044684800
author Guo, Shuxiang
Pang, Muye
Gao, Baofeng
Hirata, Hideyuki
Ishihara, Hidenori
author_facet Guo, Shuxiang
Pang, Muye
Gao, Baofeng
Hirata, Hideyuki
Ishihara, Hidenori
author_sort Guo, Shuxiang
collection PubMed
description The surface electromyography (sEMG) technique is proposed for muscle activation detection and intuitive control of prostheses or robot arms. Motion recognition is widely used to map sEMG signals to the target motions. One of the main factors preventing the implementation of this kind of method for real-time applications is the unsatisfactory motion recognition rate and time consumption. The purpose of this paper is to compare eight combinations of four feature extraction methods (Root Mean Square (RMS), Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA), Weight Peaks (WP), and Muscular Model (MM)) and two classifiers (Neural Networks (NN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM)), for the task of mapping sEMG signals to eight upper-limb motions, to find out the relation between these methods and propose a proper combination to solve this issue. Seven subjects participated in the experiment and six muscles of the upper-limb were selected to record sEMG signals. The experimental results showed that NN classifier obtained the highest recognition accuracy rate (88.7%) during the training process while SVM performed better in real-time experiments (85.9%). For time consumption, SVM took less time than NN during the training process but needed more time for real-time computation. Among the four feature extraction methods, WP had the highest recognition rate for the training process (97.7%) while MM performed the best during real-time tests (94.3%). The combination of MM and NN is recommended for strict real-time applications while a combination of MM and SVM will be more suitable when time consumption is not a key requirement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4431272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44312722015-05-19 Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement Guo, Shuxiang Pang, Muye Gao, Baofeng Hirata, Hideyuki Ishihara, Hidenori Sensors (Basel) Article The surface electromyography (sEMG) technique is proposed for muscle activation detection and intuitive control of prostheses or robot arms. Motion recognition is widely used to map sEMG signals to the target motions. One of the main factors preventing the implementation of this kind of method for real-time applications is the unsatisfactory motion recognition rate and time consumption. The purpose of this paper is to compare eight combinations of four feature extraction methods (Root Mean Square (RMS), Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA), Weight Peaks (WP), and Muscular Model (MM)) and two classifiers (Neural Networks (NN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM)), for the task of mapping sEMG signals to eight upper-limb motions, to find out the relation between these methods and propose a proper combination to solve this issue. Seven subjects participated in the experiment and six muscles of the upper-limb were selected to record sEMG signals. The experimental results showed that NN classifier obtained the highest recognition accuracy rate (88.7%) during the training process while SVM performed better in real-time experiments (85.9%). For time consumption, SVM took less time than NN during the training process but needed more time for real-time computation. Among the four feature extraction methods, WP had the highest recognition rate for the training process (97.7%) while MM performed the best during real-time tests (94.3%). The combination of MM and NN is recommended for strict real-time applications while a combination of MM and SVM will be more suitable when time consumption is not a key requirement. MDPI 2015-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4431272/ /pubmed/25894941 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s150409022 Text en © 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Guo, Shuxiang
Pang, Muye
Gao, Baofeng
Hirata, Hideyuki
Ishihara, Hidenori
Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title_full Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title_fullStr Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title_short Comparison of sEMG-Based Feature Extraction and Motion Classification Methods for Upper-Limb Movement
title_sort comparison of semg-based feature extraction and motion classification methods for upper-limb movement
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25894941
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s150409022
work_keys_str_mv AT guoshuxiang comparisonofsemgbasedfeatureextractionandmotionclassificationmethodsforupperlimbmovement
AT pangmuye comparisonofsemgbasedfeatureextractionandmotionclassificationmethodsforupperlimbmovement
AT gaobaofeng comparisonofsemgbasedfeatureextractionandmotionclassificationmethodsforupperlimbmovement
AT hiratahideyuki comparisonofsemgbasedfeatureextractionandmotionclassificationmethodsforupperlimbmovement
AT ishiharahidenori comparisonofsemgbasedfeatureextractionandmotionclassificationmethodsforupperlimbmovement