Analysis of EMG Signals during Stance and Swing Phases for Controlling Magnetorheological Brake applications
The development of ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for lower limb rehabilitation have received significant attention over the past decades. Recently, passive AFO equipped with magnetorheological brake had been developed based on ankle angle and electromyography (EMG) signals. Nonetheless, the EMG signals...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
De Gruyter
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/bac4853821464b3f9ef9ac51ebe353dc |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The development of ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for lower limb rehabilitation have received significant attention over the past decades. Recently, passive AFO equipped with magnetorheological brake had been developed based on ankle angle and electromyography (EMG) signals. Nonetheless, the EMG signals were categorized in stance and swing phases through visual observation as the signals are stochastic. Therefore, this study aims to classify the pattern of EMG signals during stance and swing phases. Seven-time domains features will be extracted and fed into artificial neural network (ANN) as a classifier. Two different training algorithms of ANN namely Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) and Scaled Conjugate Gradient (SCG) will be applied. As number of inputs will affect the classification performance of ANN, different number of input features will be employed. In this study, three participants were recruited and walk on the treadmills for 60 seconds by constant the speed. The ANN model was designed with 2, 10, 12, and 14 inputs features with LM and SCG training algorithms. Then, the ANN was trained ten times and the performances of each inputs features were measured using classification rate of training, testing, validation and overall. This study found that all the inputs with LM training algorithm gained more than 2% average classification rate than SCG training algorithm. On the other hand, classification accuracy of 10, 12 and 14 inputs were 5% higher than 2 inputs. It can be concluded that LM training algorithm of ANN was performed better than SCG algorithm with at least 10 inputs. |
|---|