Cited by 478Muscle activation and electromyography studiesProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

EMG feature evaluation for movement control of upper extremity prostheses

Zardoshti-Kermani, M., Wheeler, B.C., Badie, K., Hashemi, R.M.·1995·IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

A variety of EMG features have been evaluated for control of myoelectric upper extremity prostheses. Movement class discrimination, robustness, and computational complexity of these features have been investigated for different time window sizes and noise levels. The measurements include novel application of the Davies-Bouldin index, a measure of cluster separability, and the K-nearest neighbor nonparametric classifier. The features evaluated are the integral of average value, the variance, the number of zero crossings, the Willison amplitude, the v-order and log detectors, and autoregressive model parameters. A new feature, the EMG Histogram, is introduced and shown to be the most effective of the group. The experiments were done on the data acquired from the residual biceps and triceps muscle of an above-elbow amputee.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/86.481972

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Features extracted in time and frequency domains increase the possibility of controlling more than two degrees of freedom when combined with advanced classification algorithms and on-line learning.

    “Several features can be extracted in both time and frequency domains (Zardoshti-Kermani et al., 1995; Englehart, 1998; Pattichis and Pattichis, 1999; Sparto et al., 2000) that increase the possibility of controlling more than two degrees of freedom of the prosthesis when used in combination with advanced classification algorithms (Kelly et al., 1990; Christodoulou and Pattichis, 1999; Micera et al”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zardoshti-Kermani, M., Wheeler, B. C., Badie, K., & Hashemi, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Amirkabir University of Technology (IR)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • ICT Research Institute (IR)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
1995
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
324-333
ISSN
1063-6528 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120422653
Cited by
477
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
motor control, Davies-Bouldin index, k-nearest neighbors, zero crossings, above-elbow amputation, biceps and triceps, computational complexity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review