A muscle synergies-based movements detection approach for recognition of the wrist movements

• Published in: EURASIP journal on advances in signal processing 2020-10, Vol.2020 (1), p.1-19, Article 43
• Main Authors: Masoumdoost, Aida, Saadatyar, Reza, Kobravi, Hamid Reza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Analysis; Bayesian analysis; Classification; Clustering; Decision fusion; Electromyogram; Electromyography; Engineering; Motion perception; Multilayers; Muscle synergy; Muscles; Myoelectricity; Neural networks; Pattern classification; Performance evaluation; Prostheses; Quantum Information Technology; Reliability analysis; Signal,Image and Speech Processing; Spintronics; Wrist; Wrist movement
• ISSN: 1687-6180; 1687-6172; 1687-6180
• DOI: 10.1186/s13634-020-00699-y

Myoelectric signals are regarded as the control signal for prosthetic limbs. But, the main research challenge is reliable and repeatable movement detection using electromyography. In this study, the analysis of the muscle synergy pattern has been considered as a key idea to cope with this main challenge. The main objective of this research was to provide an analytical tool to recognize six wrist movements through electromyography (EMG) based on analysis of the muscle synergy patterns. In order to design such a system‚ the synergy patterns of the wrist muscles have been extracted and utilized to identify wrist movements. Also, different decision fusion algorithms were used to increase the reliability of the synergy pattern classification. The classification performance was evaluated while no data subject was enrolled. In terms of the achieved performance, using a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network as the fusion algorithm turned out to be the best combination. The classification average accuracy, obtained in an offline manner, was about 99.78 ± 0.45%. While the classification average cross-validation accuracy, obtained in an offline manner, using Bayesian fusion, and Bayesian fuzzy clustering (BFC) fusion algorithm were 99.33 ± 0.80% and 96.43 ± 1.08%, respectively.