2013
DOI: 10.1016/s0208-5216(13)70054-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Gaussian Mixture Model in Classifying Hand Motions by Using sEMG Signals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Myocontrol is still limited to a few DOFs (Arjunan and Kumar, 2010; Yang et al, 2014), and surface electromyography (sEMG) signals are deemed to be no longer enough (Jiang et al, 2012a). Researchers have tried to address this issue by increasing the number of sensors (Tenore et al, 2007), although it is known that four to six channels are acceptable for pattern detection (Young et al, 2012), and/or to find their optimal placement given the characteristics of the stump (Castellini and van der Smagt, 2009; Fang et al, 2015); several pattern recognition algorithms have been studied, such as artificial neural networks (Baspinar et al, 2013), linear discriminant analysis (Khushaba et al, 2009) and non-linear incremental learning (Gijsberts et al, 2014). However, one of the major drawbacks of sEMG signals is their variable nature: sweat, electrode shifts, motion artifacts, ambient noise, cross-talk among deep adjacent muscles and muscular fatigue can crucially affect them (Oskoei and Hu, 2007; Cram and Kasman, 2010; Merletti et al, 2011a; Castellini et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Myocontrol is still limited to a few DOFs (Arjunan and Kumar, 2010; Yang et al, 2014), and surface electromyography (sEMG) signals are deemed to be no longer enough (Jiang et al, 2012a). Researchers have tried to address this issue by increasing the number of sensors (Tenore et al, 2007), although it is known that four to six channels are acceptable for pattern detection (Young et al, 2012), and/or to find their optimal placement given the characteristics of the stump (Castellini and van der Smagt, 2009; Fang et al, 2015); several pattern recognition algorithms have been studied, such as artificial neural networks (Baspinar et al, 2013), linear discriminant analysis (Khushaba et al, 2009) and non-linear incremental learning (Gijsberts et al, 2014). However, one of the major drawbacks of sEMG signals is their variable nature: sweat, electrode shifts, motion artifacts, ambient noise, cross-talk among deep adjacent muscles and muscular fatigue can crucially affect them (Oskoei and Hu, 2007; Cram and Kasman, 2010; Merletti et al, 2011a; Castellini et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different hybrids of neural network were showing good performance especially to understand complex pattern from imprecise data. Research [12] proposed to control an electric powered wheelchair based on sEMG signal. The autoregressive (AR) model was proposed to extract sEMG features before using the back-propagation artificial neural network (BPANN) to classify different facial movement patterns.…”
Section: B Semg Classification and Analysis Using Computational Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Time domain features such as Mean Absolute Value (MAV), number of Zero Crossings (ZC), number of Slope Sign Changes (SSC) and Waveform Length (WL), average EMG amplitude (aEMG), variance (VAR) and Root Mean Square (RMS) were considered for pattern recognition [35,36,37,38]. These features were extracted from 4 channels of sEMG signals during the sketching of each shape.…”
Section: Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%