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 medRxiv
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

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.5%
2
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
5
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
6
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
7
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
8
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
9
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
10
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
11
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
12
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
14
Network Neuroscience
116 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
15
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
17
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
18
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
19
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Methods
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%