↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating EMG Feature and Classifier Selection for Application to Partial-Hand Prosthesis Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Evaluating EMG Feature and Classifier Selection for Application to Partial-Hand Prosthesis Control
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2016.00015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adenike A. Adewuyi, Levi J. Hargrove, Todd A. Kuiken

Abstract

Pattern recognition-based myoelectric control of upper-limb prostheses has the potential to restore control of multiple degrees of freedom. Though this control method has been extensively studied in individuals with higher-level amputations, few studies have investigated its effectiveness for individuals with partial-hand amputations. Most partial-hand amputees retain a functional wrist and the ability of pattern recognition-based methods to correctly classify hand motions from different wrist positions is not well studied. In this study, focusing on partial-hand amputees, we evaluate (1) the performance of non-linear and linear pattern recognition algorithms and (2) the performance of optimal EMG feature subsets for classification of four hand motion classes in different wrist positions for 16 non-amputees and 4 amputees. Our results show that linear discriminant analysis and linear and non-linear artificial neural networks perform significantly better than the quadratic discriminant analysis for both non-amputees and partial-hand amputees. For amputees, including information from multiple wrist positions significantly decreased error (p < 0.001) but no further significant decrease in error occurred when more than 4, 2, or 3 positions were included for the extrinsic (p = 0.07), intrinsic (p = 0.06), or combined extrinsic and intrinsic muscle EMG (p = 0.08), respectively. Finally, we found that a feature set determined by selecting optimal features from each channel outperformed the commonly used time domain (p < 0.001) and time domain/autoregressive feature sets (p < 0.01). This method can be used as a screening filter to select the features from each channel that provide the best classification of hand postures across different wrist positions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 19%
Student > Master 24 17%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Professor 6 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 70 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Unspecified 6 4%
Computer Science 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,864,294
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#399
of 866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,286
of 315,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 866 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 315,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.