4.5 Article

On-line signal quality estimation of multichannel surface electromyograms

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/BF02345813

关键词

surface electromyography; multichannel; impedance; quality estimation; on-line; multivariate outlier detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When multichannel surface-electromyography (MCSEMG) systems are used, there is a risk of recording low-quality signals. Such signals can be confusing for analysis and interpretation and can be caused by power-line interference, motion artifacts or poor electrode-skin contact. Usually, the electrode-skin impedance is measured to estimate the quality of the contact between the electrodes and the skin. However, this is not always practical, and the contact can change over short time-scales. A fast method is described to estimate the quality of individual signals of monopolar MCSEMG recordings based on volume conduction of myo-electric signals. The characteristics of the signals were described using two descriptor variables. Outliers (extreme data points) were detected in the two-dimensional distributions of the descriptor variables using a non-parametric technique, and the quality of the signals was estimated by their outlier probabilities. The method's performance was evaluated using 1 s long signals visually classified as very poor (G1), poor (G2) or good quality (G3). Recordings from different subjects, contraction levels and muscles were used. An optimum threshold at 0.05 outlier probability was proposed and resulted in classification accuracies of 100% and > 70% for G1 and G2 signals, respectively, whereas < 5% of the G3 signals were classified as poor. In conclusion, the proposed method estimated MCSEMG signal quality with high accuracy, compared with visual assessment, and is suitable for on-line implementation. The method could be applied to other multichannel sensor systems, with an arbitrary number of descriptor variables, when their distributions can be assumed to lie within a certain range.

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