Abstract
An adaptive certainty-based supervised classification approach for electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition is presented and evaluated. Similarity criterion used for grou** motor unit potentials (MUPs) is based on a combination of MUP shapes and two modes of use of motor unit (MU) firing pattern information: passive and active. Performance of the developed classifier was evaluated using synthetic signals of known properties and real signals and compared with the performance of the certainty classifier (CC). Across the sets of simulated and real EMG signals used for comparison, the adaptive certainty classifier (ACC) had both better average performance and lower performance variability. For simulated signals of varying intensity, the ACC had an average correct classification rate (CC r ) of 83.7% with a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 5.8% compared to 78.3 and 8.7%, respectively, for the CC. For simulated signals with varying amounts of shape and/or firing pattern variability, the ACC had a CC r of 79.7% with a MAD of 4.7% compared to 76.6 and 6.9%, respectively, for the CC. For real signals, the ACC had a CC r of 70.0% with a MAD of 6.3% compared to 64.9 and 6.4%, respectively, for the CC. The test results demonstrate that the ACC can manage both MUP shape variability as well as MU firing pattern variability. The ACC adapts to EMG signal characteristics to create dynamic data driven classification criteria so that the number of MUP assignments made reflects the signal complexity and the number of erroneous assignments is kept sufficiently low. The ability of the ACC to adjust to specific signal characteristics suggests that it can be successfully applied to a wide variety of EMG signals.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Basmajian JV, De Luca CJ (1985) Muscles alive: their functions revealed by electromyography, 5th edn, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore
De Luca CJ (1979) Physiology and mathematics of myoelectric signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 26(6):313–325
Doherty TJ, Stashuk DW (2003) Decomposition-based quantitative electromyography: methods and initial normative data in five muscles. Muscle Nerve 28(2):204–211
Geva AB (2000) Application of fuzzy clustering to biomedical signal processing and dynamic system identification. In: Metin A (ed) Nonlinear biomedical signal processing vol 1. IEEE Press, New York, 27–52
Hamilton-Wright A, Stashuk DW (2005) Physiologically based simulation of clinical EMG signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52(2):171–183
Jain AK (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-Hall
Lago P, Jones NB (1977) Effect of motor-unit firing time statistics on emg spectra. Med Biol Eng Comput 34(1):648–655
Matthews PBC (1996) Relationship of firing intervals of human motor units to the trajectory of post-spike after-hyperpolarization and synaptic noise. J physiol 492(2):597–628
McGill KC (1984) A method for quantitating the clinical electromyogram. Ph.D dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Paoli GM (1993) Estimating certainty in classification of motor unit action potentials. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo
Perkel D, Gerstein GL, Moore GP (1967) Neural spike trains and stochastic point process—part I The single spike train. Biophys J 7:391–418
Stashuk DW (1999) Decomposition and quantitative analysis of clinical electromyographic signals. Med Eng Phys 21:389–404
Stashuk DW (2001) EMG signal decomposition: how can it be accomplished and used? J Electromyogr Kinesiol 11:151–173
Stashuk DW, Paoli GM (1998) Robust supervised classification of motor unit action potentials. Med Biol Eng Comput 36(1):75–82
Stashuk DW, Qu Y (1996) Robust method for estimating motor unit firing-pattern statistics. Med Biol Eng Comput 34(1):50–57
Usui S, Amidror I (1982) Digital low-pass differentiation for biological signal processing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 29(10):686–693
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rasheed, S., Stashuk, D. & Kamel, M. Adaptive certainty-based classification for decomposition of EMG signals. Med Bio Eng Comput 44, 298–310 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-006-0033-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-006-0033-5