Digital signal processing algorithms for the detection of afferent nerve activity recorded from cuff electrodes
Abstract
Due to the very poor signal-to-noise ratios (SNR's) usually encountered with whole nerve-cuff signals, the processing method typically applied, rectification and windowed (bin)-integration (RBI), can have serious shortcomings in extracting reliable information. In order to improve detection accuracy, these signals were further analyzed using statistical signal detection algorithms based on their second and higher order spectra (HOS). A comparison with both analog and digital RBI processing suggests that the statistical methods, due to their ability to separate the signal and noise subspaces, are superior. It was determined that the noise typically encountered with nerve-cuff electrode signals is normally (Gaussian) distributed. Therefore, third-order statistics can be applied to, ideally, completely reject the noise component. When cutaneous nerve recordings from the calcaneal nerve (innervating the heel area) were used in a drop-foot correction neural prosthesis, the detection percentage and the insensitivity to algorithm parameters were increased through the use of these statistical methods as to warrant their real-time implementation, and the inherent additional processing hardware that entails.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
For heel contact with the floor detected from a cuff electrode on the sural nerve, advanced statistical techniques are used to improve detection performance.
“In other cases, such as heel contact with the floor detected from a cuff electrode on the sural nerve, more advanced statistical techniques are used to improve the detection performance (Upshaw and Sinkjaer, 1998)”
From A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems (2005) · cites this paper as Upshaw and Sinkjaer, 1998
Extrafascicular electrodes such as nerve cuff electrodes transduce signals with amplitudes below 20 μVpp.
“In addition, the signals transduced by extrafascicular electrodes, such as nerve cuff electrodes, have amplitudes less than 20 µVpp [41, 75, 127, 138].”
From Implantable neurotechnologies: a review of integrated circuit neural amplifiers (2016) · cites this paper as [138]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 74
- Authors
- Upshaw, B., & Sinkjaer, T.
- Affiliations
- Aalborg University (DK)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 172-181
- ISSN
- 1063-6528 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096022952
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
- National Technical University of Athens
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Keywords
- cuff electrodes, higher-order statistics, third-order statistics, signal-to-noise ratio, neural prosthesis, real-time signal processing
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Afferent Pathways, Algorithms, Calcaneus, Electrodes, Humans, Male, Multiple Sclerosis, Reference Values, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
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