评估两个上肢关节的通用 EMG 扭矩模型

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Haopeng Wang , Berj Bardizbanian , Ziling Zhu , He Wang , Chenyun Dai , Edward A. Clancy
{"title":"评估两个上肢关节的通用 EMG 扭矩模型","authors":"Haopeng Wang ,&nbsp;Berj Bardizbanian ,&nbsp;Ziling Zhu ,&nbsp;He Wang ,&nbsp;Chenyun Dai ,&nbsp;Edward A. Clancy","doi":"10.1016/j.jelekin.2024.102864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Advanced single-use dynamic EMG-torque models require burdensome subject-specific calibration contractions and have historically been <em>assumed</em> to produce lower error than generic models (i.e., models that are identical across subjects and muscles). To investigate this assumption, we studied generic one degree of freedom (DoF) models derived from the ensemble median of subject-specific models, evaluated across subject, DoF and joint. We used elbow (<em>N</em> = 64) and hand-wrist (<em>N</em> = 9) datasets. Subject-specific elbow models performed statistically better [5.79 ± 1.89 %MVT (maximum voluntary torque) error] than generic elbow models (6.21 ± 1.85 %MVT error). However, there were no statistical differences between subject-specific vs. generic models <em>within</em><span> each hand-wrist DoF. Next, we evaluated generic models across joints. The best hand-wrist generic model had errors of 6.29 ± 1.85 %MVT when applied to the elbow. The elbow generic model had errors of 7.04 ± 2.29 %MVT when applied to the hand-wrist. The generic elbow model was statistically better in both joints, compared to the generic hand-wrist model. Finally, we tested Butterworth filter models (a simpler generic model), finding no statistical differences between optimum Butterworth and subject-specific models. Overall, generic models simplified EMG-torque training without substantive performance degradation and provided the possibility of transfer learning between joints.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":56123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of generic EMG-Torque models across two Upper-Limb joints\",\"authors\":\"Haopeng Wang ,&nbsp;Berj Bardizbanian ,&nbsp;Ziling Zhu ,&nbsp;He Wang ,&nbsp;Chenyun Dai ,&nbsp;Edward A. Clancy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jelekin.2024.102864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Advanced single-use dynamic EMG-torque models require burdensome subject-specific calibration contractions and have historically been <em>assumed</em> to produce lower error than generic models (i.e., models that are identical across subjects and muscles). To investigate this assumption, we studied generic one degree of freedom (DoF) models derived from the ensemble median of subject-specific models, evaluated across subject, DoF and joint. We used elbow (<em>N</em> = 64) and hand-wrist (<em>N</em> = 9) datasets. Subject-specific elbow models performed statistically better [5.79 ± 1.89 %MVT (maximum voluntary torque) error] than generic elbow models (6.21 ± 1.85 %MVT error). However, there were no statistical differences between subject-specific vs. generic models <em>within</em><span> each hand-wrist DoF. Next, we evaluated generic models across joints. The best hand-wrist generic model had errors of 6.29 ± 1.85 %MVT when applied to the elbow. The elbow generic model had errors of 7.04 ± 2.29 %MVT when applied to the hand-wrist. The generic elbow model was statistically better in both joints, compared to the generic hand-wrist model. Finally, we tested Butterworth filter models (a simpler generic model), finding no statistical differences between optimum Butterworth and subject-specific models. Overall, generic models simplified EMG-torque training without substantive performance degradation and provided the possibility of transfer learning between joints.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050641124000087\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050641124000087","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先进的单次使用动态 EMG 扭矩模型需要针对特定受试者进行繁琐的校准收缩,而且历来被认为会产生比通用模型(即跨受试者和肌肉的相同模型)更低的误差。为了研究这一假设,我们研究了从特定受试者模型的集合中值得出的通用单自由度(DoF)模型,并对不同受试者、DoF 和关节进行了评估。我们使用了肘部(N = 64)和手腕部(N = 9)数据集。与一般肘关节模型(6.21 ± 1.85 %MVT误差)相比,特定受试者肘关节模型的统计性能更好[5.79 ± 1.89 %MVT(最大自主扭矩)误差]。然而,在每个手-腕动作幅度内,受试者特定模型与通用模型之间没有统计学差异。接下来,我们对各关节的通用模型进行了评估。最佳手-腕通用模型应用于肘部时,误差为 6.29 ± 1.85 %MVT。肘部通用模型应用于手腕时,误差为 7.04 ± 2.29 %MVT。与手-腕通用模型相比,肘通用模型在两个关节上的统计结果都更好。最后,我们测试了巴特沃斯滤波器模型(一种更简单的通用模型),发现最佳巴特沃斯模型与特定对象模型之间没有统计学差异。总体而言,通用模型简化了 EMG 扭矩训练,但没有造成实质性的性能下降,并提供了关节间迁移学习的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of generic EMG-Torque models across two Upper-Limb joints

Advanced single-use dynamic EMG-torque models require burdensome subject-specific calibration contractions and have historically been assumed to produce lower error than generic models (i.e., models that are identical across subjects and muscles). To investigate this assumption, we studied generic one degree of freedom (DoF) models derived from the ensemble median of subject-specific models, evaluated across subject, DoF and joint. We used elbow (N = 64) and hand-wrist (N = 9) datasets. Subject-specific elbow models performed statistically better [5.79 ± 1.89 %MVT (maximum voluntary torque) error] than generic elbow models (6.21 ± 1.85 %MVT error). However, there were no statistical differences between subject-specific vs. generic models within each hand-wrist DoF. Next, we evaluated generic models across joints. The best hand-wrist generic model had errors of 6.29 ± 1.85 %MVT when applied to the elbow. The elbow generic model had errors of 7.04 ± 2.29 %MVT when applied to the hand-wrist. The generic elbow model was statistically better in both joints, compared to the generic hand-wrist model. Finally, we tested Butterworth filter models (a simpler generic model), finding no statistical differences between optimum Butterworth and subject-specific models. Overall, generic models simplified EMG-torque training without substantive performance degradation and provided the possibility of transfer learning between joints.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology is the primary source for outstanding original articles on the study of human movement from muscle contraction via its motor units and sensory system to integrated motion through mechanical and electrical detection techniques. As the official publication of the International Society of Electrophysiology and Kinesiology, the journal is dedicated to publishing the best work in all areas of electromyography and kinesiology, including: control of movement, muscle fatigue, muscle and nerve properties, joint biomechanics and electrical stimulation. Applications in rehabilitation, sports & exercise, motion analysis, ergonomics, alternative & complimentary medicine, measures of human performance and technical articles on electromyographic signal processing are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信