↓ Skip to main content

Resolving the effect of wrist position on myoelectric pattern recognition control

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Resolving the effect of wrist position on myoelectric pattern recognition control
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0246-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The use of pattern recognition-based methods to control myoelectric upper-limb prostheses has been well studied in individuals with high-level amputations but few studies have demonstrated that it is suitable for partial-hand amputees, who often possess a functional wrist. This study's objective was to evaluate strategies that allow partial-hand amputees to control a prosthetic hand while allowing retain wrist function. EMG data was recorded from the extrinsic and intrinsic hand muscles of six non-amputees and two partial-hand amputees while they performed 4 hand motions in 13 different wrist positions. The performance of 4 classification schemes using EMG data alone and EMG data combined with wrist positional information was evaluated. Using recorded wrist positional data, the relationship between EMG features and wrist position was modeled and used to develop a wrist position-independent classification scheme. A multi-layer perceptron artificial neural network classifier was better able to discriminate four hand motion classes in 13 wrist positions than a linear discriminant analysis classifier (p = 0.006), quadratic discriminant analysis classifier (p < 0.0001) and a linear perceptron artificial neural network classifier (p = 0.04). The addition of wrist position data to EMG data significantly improved performance (p < 0.001). Training the classifier with the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic muscle EMG data performed significantly better than using intrinsic (p < 0.0001) or extrinsic muscle EMG data alone (p < 0.0001), and training with intrinsic muscle EMG data performed significantly better than extrinsic muscle EMG data alone (p < 0.001). The same trends were observed for amputees, except training with intrinsic muscle EMG data, on average, performed worse than the extrinsic muscle EMG data. We propose a wrist position-independent controller that simulates data from multiple wrist positions and is able to significantly improve performance by 48-74% (p < 0.05) for non-amputees and by 45-66% for partial-hand amputees, compared to a classifier trained only with data from a neutral wrist position and tested with data from multiple positions. Sensor fusion (using EMG and wrist position information), non-linear artificial neural networks, combining EMG data across multiple muscle sources, and simulating data from different wrist positions are effective strategies for mitigating the wrist position effect and improving classification performance.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 51 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Computer Science 6 6%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 31 31%
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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,459,782
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#844
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,912
of 310,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 310,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.