Back

An Unsupervised approach to identify patient-specific EMG Detector for Robot-assisted therapy in severe stroke.

Yuvaraj, M.; Prabakar, A. T.; SKM, V.; Burdet, E.; Murgialday, A. R.; Balasubramanian, S.

2024-12-10 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2024.12.06.24318597
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWIn severely impaired stroke patients, implementing EMG-driven robot-assisted therapy requires the presence of sufficient residual EMG and a patient-specific detector for accurate and low-latency EMG detection. However, identifying such a detector is challenging, especially when the level of residual EMG in a given patient is unknown . This paper proposes an unsupervised approach to distinguish between EMG data when the patient is relaxed versus attempting a movement - the maximally separating detector. We investigated six different detector types and separation measures using EMG data from a previous randomized controlled trial. The results indicate that the approximate generalized likelihood ratio detector, along with the modified Hodges and modified Lidierth detectors, achieved the best separation. Using a subset of clinician annotated data to evaluate the detection performance, the modified Hodges detector employing the probability difference-sum ratio measure had the best detection performance in terms of detection accuracy and latency. Using the data from 30 participants, we propose a probability difference-sum ratio threshold of 0.7 for the modified Hodges detector to identify patients with sufficient residual EMG to trigger robotic assistance. From the results, we propose the use of modified Hodges detector along with a probability difference-sum ratio measure to learn the maximally separating detector for a given patient, which will screen the patient for sufficient residual EMG and provide a detector to trigger robotic assistance if sufficient EMG is present. The validation of this approach using a large dataset and investigating the quality of the human-machine interaction implemented with such a detector is warranted.

Matching journals

1
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 14 published papers
#1
157× avg
2
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 23%
17.7%
3
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 18%
1.8× avg
4
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 74 published papers
Top 2%
14× avg
5
Journal of Neural Engineering
IOP Publishing · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.5%
49× avg
6
npj Digital Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 85 published papers
Top 6%
3.6× avg
7
Scientific Data
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 30 published papers
Top 0.6%
18× avg
8
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
SAGE Publications · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
23× avg
9
Stroke
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 29 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
10
Gait & Posture
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
20× avg
11
Sensors
MDPI AG · based on 18 published papers
Top 2%
13× avg
12
NeuroImage: Clinical
Elsevier BV · based on 77 published papers
Top 6%
3.8× avg
13
F1000Research
F1000 Research Ltd · based on 28 published papers
Top 2%
8.3× avg
14
PLOS Digital Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 88 published papers
Top 9%
2.5× avg
15
Human Brain Mapping
Wiley · based on 53 published papers
Top 5%
4.3× avg
16
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 16%
0.8%
17
Healthcare
MDPI AG · based on 14 published papers
Top 3%
6.2× avg
18
Frontiers in Physiology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 3%
6.5× avg
19
Advanced Science
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 2%
6.0× avg
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 5%
3.7× avg