4.6 Article

Hand grip force estimation via EMG imaging

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2022.103550

关键词

Electromyography; Hand grip force; Functional Imaging

资金

  1. Lev Academic Center [5779/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physiological muscle disorders caused by diseases such as sarcopenia or strokes affect millions of people each year, and existing medical examinations for assessing muscle health lack standardization. In this study, a reliable framework using surface electromyography (sEMG) signals is proposed for hand grip force estimation. The results show promising accuracy and suggest potential for standardized muscle health assessment.
Physiological muscle disorders resulting from various diseases, such as sarcopenia or strokes, affect millions of people each year according to the American Heart Association. Medical examinations for assessing muscle health are difficult to administer and lack standardization. Surface electromyography (sEMG) signals have found a wide variety of applications; in this work, we present a simple reliable framework for hand grip force estimation using them. We hope that this work will lay the groundwork for applying hand grip force estimation as a method for standardized and reliable muscle health assessment. Seven healthy male subjects were voluntarily recruited and sEMG signals were collected from eight electrodes uniformly distributed around the forearm. A logarithmic function can describe the EMG-force relationship. We propose a novel method for generating functional potential-based inverse EMG images of the forearm. The hand grip force can be estimated from the reconstructed images. Using a simple lightweight system and simple algorithmic techniques we can attain a mean correlation coefficient of 0.95 +/- 0.01 and mean RMSE of 0.18 +/- 0.08N. The results are presented for subject-dependent tests, the generalizability of the method is still to be researched over a larger cohort of subjects, including rehabilitation patients.

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

4.6
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