↓ Skip to main content

Robustness of Frequency Division Technique for Online Myoelectric Pattern Recognition against Contraction-Level Variation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Robustness of Frequency Division Technique for Online Myoelectric Pattern Recognition against Contraction-Level Variation
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bahareh Tolooshams, Ning Jiang

Abstract

Contraction-level invariant surface electromyography pattern recognition introduces the decrease of training time and decreases the limitation of clinical prostheses. This study intended to examine whether a signal pre-processing method named frequency division technique (FDT) for online myoelectric pattern recognition classification is robust against contraction-level variation, and whether this pre-processing method has an advantage over traditional time-domain pattern recognition techniques even in the absence of muscle contraction-level variation. Eight healthy and naïve subjects performed wrist contractions during two degrees of freedom goal-oriented tasks, divided in three groups of type I, type II, and type III. The performance of these tasks, when the two different methods were used, was quantified by completion rate, completion time, throughput, efficiency, and overshoot. The traditional and the FDT method were compared in four runs, using combinations of normal or high muscle contraction level, and the traditional method or FDT. The results indicated that FDT had an advantage over traditional methods in the tested real-time myoelectric control tasks. FDT had a much better median completion rate of tasks (95%) compared to the traditional method (77.5%) among non-perfect runs, and the variability in FDT was strikingly smaller than the traditional method (p < 0.001). Moreover, the FDT method outperformed the traditional method in case of contraction-level variation between the training and online control phases (p = 0. 005 for throughput in type I tasks with normal contraction level, p = 0.006 for throughput in type II tasks, and p = 0.001 for efficiency with normal contraction level of all task types). This study shows that FDT provides advantages in online myoelectric control as it introduces robustness over contraction-level variations.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 19%
Lecturer 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 43%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 10%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,530,362
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,422
of 6,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,511
of 420,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,685 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.