Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 1779–1787 | Cite as

Conditioning and Sampling Issues of EMG Signals in Motion Recognition of Multifunctional Myoelectric Prostheses

  • Guanglin LiEmail author
  • Yaonan Li
  • Long Yu
  • Yanjuan Geng
Article

Abstract

Historically, the investigations of electromyography (EMG) pattern recognition-based classification of intentional movements for control of multifunctional prostheses have adopted the filter cut-off frequency and sampling rate that are commonly used in EMG research fields. In practical implementation of a multifunctional prosthesis control, it is desired to have a higher high-pass cut-off frequency to reduce more motion artifacts and to use a lower sampling rate to save the data processing time and memory of the prosthesis controller. However, it remains unclear whether a high high-pass cut-off frequency and a low-sampling rate still preserve sufficient neural control information for accurate classification of movements. In this study, we investigated the effects of high-pass cut-off frequency and sampling rate on accuracy in identifying 11 classes of arm and hand movements in both able-bodied subjects and arm amputees. Compared to a 5-Hz high-pass cut-off frequency, excluding the EMG components below 60 Hz decreased the average accuracy of 0.1% in classifying the 11 movements across able-bodied subjects and increased the average accuracy of 0.1 and 0.4% among the transradial (TR) and shoulder disarticulation (SD) amputees, respectively. Using a 500 Hz instead of a 1-kHz sampling rate, the average classification accuracy only dropped about 2.0% in arm amputees. The combination of sampling rate and high-pass cut-off frequency of 500 and 60 Hz only resulted in about 2.3% decrease in average accuracy for TR amputees and 0.4% decrease for SD amputees in comparison to the generally used values of 1 kHz and 5 Hz. These results suggest that the combination of sampling rate of 500 Hz and high-pass cut-off frequency of 60 Hz should be an optimal selection in EMG recordings for recognition of different arm movements without sacrificing too much of classification accuracy which can also remove most of motion artifacts and power-line interferences for improving the performance of myoelectric prosthesis control.

Keywords

Electromyography Multifunctional myoelectric prosthesis Signal conditioning and sampling Limb amputation Pattern recognition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Todd Kuiken at Neural Engineering Center for Artificial Limbs, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, USA, for supplying the raw EMG data from SD amputees for this study. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant #60971076, Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF) #GHP/031/08, the Shenzhen Governmental Basic Research Grand #JC200903160393A, and grants from Guangdong Key Laboratory of Robotics and Intelligent System, Guangdong Province #2009A060800016 and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Neuropsychiatric Modulation. We also thank the industrial sponsors Standard Telecommunication Ltd., Jetfly Technology Ltd., Golden Meditech Company Ltd., Bird International Ltd., Bright Steps Corporation and PCCW for their supports to the ITF project.

References

  1. 1.
    Ajiboye, A. B., and R. B. Weir. A heuristic fuzzy logic approach to EMG pattern recognition for multifunctional prosthesis control. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 13(3):280–291, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan, A. D., and K. B. Englehart. Continuous myoelectric control for powered prostheses using hidden Markov models. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52:121–124, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu, J. U., I. Moon, and M. S. Mun. A real-time EMG pattern recognition system based on linear-nonlinear feature projection for a multifunction myoelectric hand. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53:2232–2239, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clancy, E. A., S. Bouchard, and D. Rancourt. Estimation and application of EMG amplitude during dynamic contractions. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 20(6):47–54, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clancy, E. A., E. L. Morin, and R. Merletti. Sampling, noise-reduction and amplitude estimation issues in surface electromyography. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 12:1–16, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Englehart, K., and B. Hudgins. A robust, real-time control scheme for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 50(7):848–854, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Englehart, K., B. Hudgins, and A. D. Chan. Continuous multifunction myoelectric control using pattern recognition. Tech. Disabil. 15(2):95–103, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farina, D., R. Merletti, and R. M. Enoka. The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG. J. Appl. Physiol. 96:1486–1495, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallant, P. J., E. L. Morin, and L. E. Peppard. Feature-based classification of myoelectric signals using artificial neural networks. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 36:4485–4489, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hargrove, L., K. Englehart, and B. Hudgins. A comparison of surface and intramuscular myoelectric signal classification. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 54:847–853, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, Y. G., K. B. Englehart, B. Hudgins, and A. D. Chan. A Gaussian mixture model based classification scheme for myoelectric control of powered upper limb prostheses. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52(11):1801–1811, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, H., P. Zhou, G. Li, and T. A. Kuiken. An analysis of EMG electrode configuration for targeted muscle reinnervation based neural machine interface. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 16(1):37–45, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, H., P. Zhou, G. Li, and T. A. Kuiken. Spatial filtering improves EMG classification accuracy following targeted muscle reinnervation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 37:1849–1857, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hudgins, B. S., P. A. Parker, and R. N. Scott. A new strategy for multi-functional myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 40(1):82–94, 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ives, J. C., and J. K. Wigglesworth. Sampling rate effects on surface EMG timing and amplitude measures. Clin. Biomech. 18:543–552, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuiken, T. A. Consideration of nerve-muscle grafts to improve the control of artificial arms. J. Technol. Disabil. 15(2):105–111, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuiken, T. A. Targeted reinnervation for improved prosthetic function. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 17(1):1–13, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuiken, T. A., G. A. Dumanian, R. D. Lipschutz, L. A. Miller, and K. A. Stubblefield. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 28(3):245–253, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuiken, T. A., G. Li, B. A. Lock, R. D. Lipschutz, L. A. Miller, K. A. Stubblefield, and K. B. Englehart. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA 301:619–628, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, G., A. E. Schultz, and T. A. Kuiken. Quantifying pattern recognition based myoelectric control of multifunctional transradial prostheses. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18:185–192, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lock, B. A., K. Englehart, and B. Hudgins. Real-time myoelectric control in a virtual environment to relate usability vs. accuracy. In: MyoElectric Controls Symposium, New Brunswick, Fredericton, pp. 122–127, 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parker, P. A., and R. N. Scott. Myoelectric control of prostheses. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 13(4):283–310, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reaz, M. B. I., M. S. Hussain, and F. Mohd-Yasin. Techniques of EMG signal analysis: detection, processing, classification and applications. Biol. Proced. Online 8:11–35, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sears, H. H. Trends in upper-extremity prosthetic development. In: Atlas of Limb Prosthetics, edited by J. H. Bowker, and J. W. Michael. St. Louis: Mosby, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stegeman, D. F. and H. J. Hermens. Standards for surface electromyography: the European project “Surface EMG for non-invasive assessment of muscles (SENIAM),” http://www.med.uni-jena.de/motorik/pdf/stegeman.pdf, 2007.
  26. 26.
    Winter, D. A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou, P., M. M. Lowery, K. B. Englehart, H. Huang, G. Li, L. Hargrove, J. P. A. Dewald, and T. A. Kuiken. Decoding a new neural machine interface for control of artificial limbs. J. Neurophysiol. 98(5):2974–2982, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guanglin Li
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yaonan Li
    • 3
  • Long Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yanjuan Geng
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Lab for Health Informatics of Chinese Academy of Science (CAS)ShenzhenChina
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical and Health EngineeringShenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, CASShenzhenChina
  3. 3.Department of BiologyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations