4.5 Article

A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SONOMYOGRAPHY, ELECTROMYOGRAPHY, FORCE, AND WRIST ANGLE IN A DISCRETE TRACKING TASK

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 884-891

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.03.008

关键词

Cognition; Electromyography; EMG; Muscle; Prosthetic control; Sonomyography; SMG; Ultrasound

资金

  1. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong [PolyU 5331/06E]
  2. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University [J-BB69]
  3. UK Department of Health [PP29]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously used the real-time change of muscle thickness detected using ultrasound, namely sonomyography (SMG), for prosthesis motor control purposes. In the present study, we further compared subjects' performance using SMG and surface electromyography (EMG) in a series of discrete tracking tasks, both with and without a concurrent auditory attention task. Sixteen healthy subjects used different signals in a random order to control the cursor on a personal computer screen to cancel the letter E'' in a sequence of vertically arranged letters. Subjects' performance was evaluated under isometric contraction and wrist extension using the extensor carpi radiali muscle. The percentage of successfully cancelled Es using SMG decreased by 21 +/- 16% and 17 +/- 11% in isometric contraction and wrist extension tests, respectively, compared with the corresponding performances using force and angle signals. The corresponding reduction recorded by using EMG was 40 +/- 29% and 41 +/- 25%. In addition, there was a significant decrease by using EMG compared with that by SMG (p < 0.001). The results also demonstrated that there was no significant difference of performances of canceling E between the single and dual tasks by using any of the control signals (p > 0.99). Furthermore, the SMG control provided more consistent performances under the single and dual tasks compared with EMG control. (E-mail: ypzheng@ieee.org) (C) 2011 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据