Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Archival Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Archival Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRODE IMPLANTATION AND TARGETING ON PATTERN CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY FOR PROSTHESIS CONTROL

Thumbnail
View / Download
1.2 Mb
Date
2008
Authors
Farrell, Todd
Weir, Richard F.
Repository Usage Stats
507
views
292
downloads
Abstract
Many researchers have attempted to recognize patterns of muscle activity associated with different movements of the phantom limb and link these patterns to movements of the prosthesis. Researchers have examined a variety of different classifiers and extracted complex features from the electromyographic (EMG) signals to maximize classification accuracy. However, nearly all of these efforts used surface electrodes. Surface electrodes are advantageous because they are cheap, non-invasive and have a large pickup area. Extracting features from these recordings can allow the classifier to parse out the activity from the different muscles that sum together to produce the myoelectric signal and may increase the information available to the classifier. Alternatively, intramuscular electrodes may be advantageous for multifunctional prosthesis control because they record focally from deep muscles, provide consistent recording sites as the user changes arm orientation or dons and doffs the prosthesis and reduce crosstalk. However, only two groups have investigated intramuscular EMG for pattern recognition based control [1- 4] and only Hargrove, et al. [1] compared surface and intramuscular electrodes, recording from sixteen untargeted surface and six targeted intramuscular channels. As well as almost solely utilizing surface electrodes, previous studies in pattern recognitionbased multifunctional prosthesis control have either targeted the electrodes to specific muscles or used untargeted electrode arrays. However, no previous work has attempted to determine which approach is superior by directly comparing targeted and untargeted electrodes. Untargeted electrodes are simpler to implement and are preferable for both intramuscular and surface recordings. Socket fabrication can be simplified if the surface electrodes only need to be arranged in an array instead of targeted to specific muscles. Additionally, targeting implantable sensors (such as the IMES [5]) to specific muscles is not a trivial task and would likely require approaches such as ultrasound guidance to properly orient the implants in specific muscle bellies. Given that the effect of either electrode targeting or electrode implantation has rarely been examined, the goals of this work were to compare the classification accuracies of multifunctional prosthesis classifiers that use either surface or intramuscular EMG as well as those that use either targeted and untargeted electrodes. Further details are available in Farrell and Weir [6].
Type
Other article
Subject
Electrode Implantation
Prosthesis Control
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/2774
Citation
Proceedings of the MEC’08 conference, UNB; 2008.
Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
More Info
Show full item record

Copyright 2002, 2005 and 2008, The University of New Brunswick.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Creative Commons License

Rights for Collection: MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University