A sparse Bayesian learning based scheme for multi-movement recognition using sEMG

  • Shuai DingEmail author
  • Liang Wang
Scientific Paper


This paper proposed a feature extraction scheme based on sparse representation considering the non-stationary property of surface electromyography (sEMG). Sparse Bayesian learning was introduced to extract the feature with optimal class separability to improve recognition accuracy of multi-movement patterns. The extracted feature, sparse representation coefficients (SRC), represented time-varying characteristics of sEMG effectively because of the compressibility (or weak sparsity) of the signal in some transformed domains. We investigated the effect of the proposed feature by comparing with other fourteen individual features in offline recognition. The results demonstrated the proposed feature revealed important dynamic information in the sEMG signals. The multi-feature sets formed by the SRC and other single feature yielded more superior performance on recognition accuracy, compared with the single features. The best average recognition accuracy of 94.33 % was gained by using SVM classifier with the multi-feature set combining the feature SRC, Williston amplitude (WAMP), wavelength (WL) and the coefficients of the fourth order autoregressive model (ARC4) via multiple kernel learning framework. The proposed feature extraction scheme (known as SRC + WAMP + WL + ARC4) is a promising method for multi-movement recognition with high accuracy.


Surface electromyography (sEMG) Feature extraction Non-stationarity Sparse representation Temporal MMV sparse Bayesian learning (T-MSBL) 



We thank S. L. Fang, C. Y. Zhang, C. C. Yu, Y. C. Liu, S. X. Cheng and T. Z. Xia for discussions and assistance with this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wheeler KA, Kumar DK, Shimada H (2010) An accurate bicep muscle model with sEMG and muscle force outputs. J Med Biol Eng 30:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khushaba RN, Kodagoda S, Liu D, Dissanayake G (2013) Muscle computer interfaces for driver distraction reduction. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 110:137–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geethanjali P, Ray KK (2011) Identification of motion from multi-channel EMG signals for control of prosthetic hand. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 34:419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pang M, Guo S, Song Z (2012) A surface EMG signals-based realtime continuous recognition for the upper limb multi-motion. In: IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation (ICMA), pp 1984–1989Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim KS, Choi HH, Moon CS, Mun CW (2011) Comparison of k-nearest neighbor, quadratic discriminant and linear discriminant analysis in classification of electromyogram signals based on the wrist-motion directions. Curr Appl Phys 11:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hargrove LJ, Englehart K, Hudgins B (2007) A comparison of surface and intramuscular myoelectric signal classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:847–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nadzri AABA, Ahmad SA, Marhaban MH, Jaafar H (2014) Characterization of surface electromyography using time domain features for determining hand motion and stages of contraction. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 37:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudgins B, Parker P, Scott RN (1993) A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 40:82–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen X, Zhu X, Zhang D (2009) Use of the discriminant Fourier-derived cepstrum with feature-level post-processing for surface electromyographic signal classification. Physiol Meas 30:1399–1413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xie HB, Huang H, Wu J, Liu L (2015) A comparative study of surface EMG classification by fuzzy relevance vector machine and fuzzy support vector machine. Physiol Meas 36:191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rafiee J, Rafiee MA, Yavari F, Schoen MP (2011) Feature extraction of forearm EMG signals for prosthetics. Expert Syst Appl 38:4058–4067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorrain T, Jiang N, Farina D (2011) Influence of the training set on the accuracy of surface EMG classification in dynamic contractions for the control of multifunction prostheses. J NeuroEng Rehabil 8:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubinstein R, Bruckstein AM, Elad M (2010) Dictionaries for sparse representation modeling. Proc IEEE 98:1045–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang J, Gao XZ, Guo P (2013) Feature extraction based on sparse representation with application to epileptic EEG classification. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 23:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tropp JA, Wright SJ (2010) Computational methods for sparse solution of linear inverse problems. Proc IEEE 98(6):948–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balouchestani M, Raahemifar K, Krishnan S (2013) New channel model for wireless body area network with compressed sensing theory. IET Wirel Sens Syst 3:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maoqi C, Ping Z (2015) A novel framework based on fastICA for high density surface EMG decomposition. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil, EngGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naik GR, Dinesh KK, Marimuthu P (2014) Signal processing evaluation of myoelectric sensor placement in low-level gestures: sensitivity analysis using independent component analysis. Expert Syst Appl 31:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boudjellal A, Abed-Meraim K, Aissa-El-Bey A, Belouchrani A (2014) Sparsity-based algorithms for blind separation of convolutive mixtures with application to EMG signals. In: 2014 IEEE workshop on statistical signal processing (SSP)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naik GR, Dinesh KK (2012) Subtle electromyographic pattern recognition for finger movements: a pilot study using BSS techniques. J Mech Med Biol 12:1250078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shokrollahi M, Sridhar K (2012) Sleep EMG analysis using sparse signal representation and classification. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE, pp 3480–3483Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salman A, Allstot EG, Chen AY, Dixon AM, Gangopadhyay D, Allstot DJ (2011) Compressive sampling of EMG bio-signals. In: Circuits and systems (ISCAS), 2011 IEEE international symposium on, pp 2095–2098Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie HB, Huang H, Wu J, Liu L (2015) A comparative study of surface EMG classification by fuzzy relevance vector machine and fuzzy support vector machine. Physiol Meas 36:191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Naik GR, Acharyya A, Nguyen HT (2014) Classification of finger extension and flexion of EMG and Cyberglove data with modified ICA weight matrix. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2014 36th annual international conference of the IEEE, pp 3829–3832Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naik GR, Nguyen HT (2015) Nonnegative matrix factorization for the identification of EMG finger movements: evaluation using matrix analysis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf 19:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vigário R, Oja E (2008) BSS and ICA in neuroinformatics: from current practices to open challenges. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 1:50–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kameoka H, Ono N, Kashino K, Sagayama S (2009) Complex NMF: a new sparse representation for acoustic signals. In: Acoustics, speech and signal processing, ICASSP 2009. IEEE international conference on pp 3437–3440Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tipping ME (2001) Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. J Mach Learn Res 1:211–244Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wipf D, Nagarajan S (2010) Iterative reweighted and methods for finding sparse solutions. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 4:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang Z, Rao B (2011) Sparse signal recovery with temporally correlated source vectors using sparse Bayesian learning. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 5:912–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu ZN, Zeng QX, Li CY, Yu SZ (2002) Practical electromyography. People’s Medical Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang D, Zhao J, Jiang L, Liu H (2012) Dynamic hand motion recognition based on transient and steady-state EMG signals. Int J Humanoid Rob 9:1250007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eldar YC, Kutyniok G (eds) (2012) Compressed sensing: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, Oxford cityGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wipf DP, Rao BD (2004) Sparse Bayesian learning for basis selection. IEEE Trans Signal Process 52:2153–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang Z, Rao BD (2011) Clarify some issues on the sparse Bayesian learning for sparse signal recovery University of California, San Diego, Tech. RepGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu B, Zhang Z, Xu G, Fan H, Fu Q (2014) Energy efficient telemonitoring of physiological signals via compressed sensing: a fast algorithm and power consumption evaluation. Biomed Signal Process Control 11:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sobahi NM (2011) Denoising of EMG signals based on Wavelet transform. Asian Trans Eng 1:17–23Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Phinyomark A, Hirunviriya S, Nuidod A, Phukpattaranont P, Limsakul C (2011) Evaluation of EMG feature extraction for movement control of upper limb prostheses based on class separation index. In: International conference on biomedical engineering, pp 750–754Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oskoei MA, Hu H, Gan JQ (2013) Feature-channel subset selection for optimising myoelectric human-machine interface design. Int J Biomech Biomed Robot 2:195–208Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Phinyomark A, Quaine F, Charbonnier S, Serviere C, Tarpin-Bernard F, Laurillau Y (2013) EMG feature evaluation for improving myoelectric pattern recognition robustness. Expert Syst Appl 40:4832–4840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibrahimy MI, Ahsan MR, Khalifa OO (2013) Design and performance analysis of artificial neural network for hand motion detection from EMG signals. World Appl Sci J 23:751–758Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Althloothi S, Mahoor MH, Zhang X, Voyles RM (2014) Human activity recognition using multi-features and multiple kernel learning. Pattern Recognit 47:1800–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rakotomamonjy A, Bach FR, Canu S, Grandvalet Y (2008) SimpleMKL. J Mach Learn Res 9:2491–2521Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Automation Science and Electrical EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations