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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |