Cargando…

Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets

To facilitate the broader use of EMG signal whitening, we studied four whitening procedures of various complexities, as well as the roles of sampling rate and noise correction. We separately analyzed force-varying and constant-force contractions from 64 subjects who completed constant-posture tasks...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, He, Rajotte, Kiriaki J., Wang, Haopeng, Dai, Chenyun, Zhu, Ziling, Huang, Xinming, Clancy, Edward A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34372403
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21155165
_version_ 1783735305815195648
author Wang, He
Rajotte, Kiriaki J.
Wang, Haopeng
Dai, Chenyun
Zhu, Ziling
Huang, Xinming
Clancy, Edward A.
author_facet Wang, He
Rajotte, Kiriaki J.
Wang, Haopeng
Dai, Chenyun
Zhu, Ziling
Huang, Xinming
Clancy, Edward A.
author_sort Wang, He
collection PubMed
description To facilitate the broader use of EMG signal whitening, we studied four whitening procedures of various complexities, as well as the roles of sampling rate and noise correction. We separately analyzed force-varying and constant-force contractions from 64 subjects who completed constant-posture tasks about the elbow over a range of forces from 0% to 50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). From the constant-force tasks, we found that noise correction via the root difference of squares (RDS) method consistently reduced EMG recording noise, often by a factor of 5–10. All other primary results were from the force-varying contractions. Sampling at 4096 Hz provided small and statistically significant improvements over sampling at 2048 Hz (~3%), which, in turn, provided small improvements over sampling at 1024 Hz (~4%). In comparing equivalent processing variants at a sampling rate of 4096 Hz, whitening filters calibrated to the EMG spectrum of each subject generally performed best (4.74% MVC EMG-force error), followed by one universal whitening filter for all subjects (4.83% MVC error), followed by a high-pass filter whitening method (4.89% MVC error) and then a first difference whitening filter (4.91% MVC error)—but none of these statistically differed. Each did significantly improve from EMG-force error without whitening (5.55% MVC). The first difference is an excellent whitening option over this range of contraction forces since no calibration or algorithm decisions are required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8348299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83482992021-08-08 Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets Wang, He Rajotte, Kiriaki J. Wang, Haopeng Dai, Chenyun Zhu, Ziling Huang, Xinming Clancy, Edward A. Sensors (Basel) Article To facilitate the broader use of EMG signal whitening, we studied four whitening procedures of various complexities, as well as the roles of sampling rate and noise correction. We separately analyzed force-varying and constant-force contractions from 64 subjects who completed constant-posture tasks about the elbow over a range of forces from 0% to 50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). From the constant-force tasks, we found that noise correction via the root difference of squares (RDS) method consistently reduced EMG recording noise, often by a factor of 5–10. All other primary results were from the force-varying contractions. Sampling at 4096 Hz provided small and statistically significant improvements over sampling at 2048 Hz (~3%), which, in turn, provided small improvements over sampling at 1024 Hz (~4%). In comparing equivalent processing variants at a sampling rate of 4096 Hz, whitening filters calibrated to the EMG spectrum of each subject generally performed best (4.74% MVC EMG-force error), followed by one universal whitening filter for all subjects (4.83% MVC error), followed by a high-pass filter whitening method (4.89% MVC error) and then a first difference whitening filter (4.91% MVC error)—but none of these statistically differed. Each did significantly improve from EMG-force error without whitening (5.55% MVC). The first difference is an excellent whitening option over this range of contraction forces since no calibration or algorithm decisions are required. MDPI 2021-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8348299/ /pubmed/34372403 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21155165 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wang, He
Rajotte, Kiriaki J.
Wang, Haopeng
Dai, Chenyun
Zhu, Ziling
Huang, Xinming
Clancy, Edward A.
Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title_full Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title_fullStr Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title_full_unstemmed Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title_short Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets
title_sort simplified optimal estimation of time-varying electromyogram standard deviation (emgσ): evaluation on two datasets
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34372403
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21155165
work_keys_str_mv AT wanghe simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT rajottekiriakij simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT wanghaopeng simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT daichenyun simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT zhuziling simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT huangxinming simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets
AT clancyedwarda simplifiedoptimalestimationoftimevaryingelectromyogramstandarddeviationemgsevaluationontwodatasets