4.2 Article

Prediction of Larynx Function Using Multichannel Surface EMG Classification

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMRB.2021.3122966

关键词

Artificial larynx; coughing; total laryngectomy; pattern recognition; speech; surface electromyography (sEMG); swallowing

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [106574/Z/14/Z]
  2. Restoration of Appearances and Function Trust (RAFT, U.K.)
  3. Therapeutic Acceleration Support (TAS) Fund
  4. Wellcome Trust [106574/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that using surface electromyography as a control signal can predict swallowing, coughing, and speaking effectively, which is promising for laryngectomy patients.
Total laryngectomy (TL) affects critical functions such as swallowing, coughing and speaking. An artificial, bioengineered larynx (ABL), operated via myoelectric signals, may improve quality of life for TL patients. To evaluate the efficacy of using surface electromyography (sEMG) as a control signal to predict instances of swallowing, coughing and speaking, sEMG was recorded from submental, intercostal and diaphragm muscles. The cohort included TL and control participants. Swallowing, coughing, speaking and movement actions were recorded, and a range of classifiers were investigated for prediction of these actions. Our algorithm achieved F1-scores of 76.0 +/- 4.4% (swallows), 93.8 +/- 2.8% (coughs) and 70.5 +/- 5.4% (speech) for controls, and 67.7 +/- 4.4% (swallows), 71.0 +/- 9.1% (coughs) and 78.0 +/- 3.8% (speech) for TLs, using a random forest (RF) classifier. 75.1 +/- 6.9% of swallows were detected within 500 ms of onset in the controls, and 63.1 +/- 6.1% in TLs. sEMG can be used to predict critical larynx movements, although a viable ABL requires improvements. Results are particularly encouraging as they encompass a TL cohort. An ABL could alleviate many challenges faced by laryngectomees. This study represents a promising step toward realising such a device.

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

4.2
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