Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the performance of surface electromyography-based onset detection methods with real data in assistive technologies

Comparative analysis and enhancements via sensor fusion

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assistive Technologies are used to increase the autonomy of people with motor disabilities by enhancing their functional capabilities. Surface Electromyography sensors have been explored in the scope of Assistive Technologies as an input modality, to provide greater control and flexibility. In this case, triggering signals are dependent on the detection of the moment when the user performs a voluntary muscular contraction. In the literature, various methods to determine this onset have been studied, but mainly for the non-disabled population and may not be designed to deal with the low signal-to-noise ratio, motion artifacts and spasms, frequently observed in people with motor disabilities, which may trigger false positives. The main purpose of this article is to perform a comparative analysis of different methods in multiple configurations of their parameters, with the goal of selecting one that can be implemented in an embedded system, targeting real time and wireless operation of a tool for Human-Computer Interaction. Furthermore, in this work we seek to improve the performance of existing onset detection methods, through a proposed sensor fusion approach, combining an Accelerometer with the Surface Electromyography sensor, to integrate motion analysis in the process of validating or rejecting muscle events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbink JH, van der Bilt A, van der Glas H W (1998) Detection of onset and termination of muscle activity in surface electromyograms. J Oral Rehabil 25:365–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreasen D (2005) EMG Single switch activation algorithms and methods. In: 28th annual conference of the rehabilitation engineering & assistive technology society of North America

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barea R, Boquete L, Rodriguez-Ascariz JM, Ortega S, López E (2011) Sensory system for implementing a human—computer interface based on electrooculography. Sensors 11(1)

  4. Barreto AB, Scargle SD, Adjouadi M (2000) A practical EMG-based human-computer interface for users with motor disabilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 37:53–64

    Google Scholar 

  5. BITalino (2016a) Accelerometer (ACC) sensor data sheet. http://bitalino.com/datasheets/REVOLUTION_ACC_sensor_datasheet.pdf

  6. BITalino (2016b) Electromyography (EMG) sensor data sheet. http://bitalino.com/datasheets/REVOLUTION_EMG_sensor_datasheet.pdf

  7. Bonato P, D’Alessio T, Knaflitz M (1998) A statistical method for the measurement of muscle activation intervals from surface myoelectric signal during gait. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45(3):287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Catela JM, Rocha RM, Piedade MS (2013) MoteIST: a modular low-power approach to wireless sensor networks nodes. Networked Embedded Systems: Special Issue of the International Journal of Adaptive, Resilient and Autonomic Systems 4(3):82–101

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chowdhury R, Reaz M, Ali M, Bakar A, Chellappan K, Chang T (2013) Surface electromyography signal processing and classification techniques. Sensors 13 (9):12,431–12,466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook AM, Polgar JM (2014) Assistive technologies: principles and practice, 4th edn. Mosby

  11. Drapała J, Brzostowski K, Szpala A, Rutkowska-Kucharska A (2012) Two stage EMG onset detection method. Archives of Control Sciences 22(4):427–440

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Encarnação P, Azevedo L, Londral A (2015) Tecnologias de apoio para pessoas com deficiência, 1st edn. Fundação Para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT)

  13. Forbes T (2013) Mouse HCI through combined EMG and IMU. Master’s thesis, University of Rhode Island

  14. Guerreiro T (2007) Assistive technologies for spinal cord injured individuals: a survey. Instituto Superior Técnico - Universidade de Lisboa, Master’s thesis

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hodges PW, Bui BH (1996) A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol - Electromyogr Mot Control 101(6):511–519

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jeong H, Kim JS, Choi JS (2004) A Study of an EMG-controlled HCI method by clenching teeth. In: Proceeding of the 6th Asia pacific conference, vol 3101, pp 163–170

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaminer MS, Arndt KA, Dover JS, Rohrer TE, Zachary CB (2009) Atlas of Cosmetic Surgery. Saunders

  18. Käthner I, Kübler A, Halder S (2015) Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state. J Neuroeng Rehabil 12(76)

  19. Levis P, Madden S, Polastre J, Szewczyk R, Whitehouse K, Woo A, Gay D, Hill J, Welsh M, Brewer E, Culler D (2005) TinyOS: an operating system for sensor networks. In: Webber W, Rabaey J M, Aarts E (eds) Ambient intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 115–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Lidierth M (1986) A computer based method for automated measurement of the periods of muscular activity from an EMG and its application to locomotor EMGs. ElectroencephClin Neurophysiol 64(4):378–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu J, Ying D, Rymer WZ, Zhou P (2015) Robust muscle activity onset detection using an unsupervised electromyogram learning framework. PloS One 10(6):e0127,990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Londral A, Silva H, Nunes N, Carvalho M, Azevedo L (2013) A wireless user-computer interface to explore various sources of biosignals and visual biofeedback for severe motor impairment. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All 3(2):118–134

    Google Scholar 

  23. Majaranta P, Bulling A (2014) Eye tracking and eye-based human–computer interaction. In: Fairclough SH, Gilleade K (eds) Advances in physiological computing. Springer, London, pp 39–65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Millán JdR, Rupp R, Müller-Putz GR, Murray-Smith R, Giugliemma C, Tangermann M, Vidaurre C, Cincotti F, Kübler A, Leeb R, Neuper C, Müller KR, Mattia D (2019) Combining brain–computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges. Front Neurosci 161(4):171–181

    Google Scholar 

  25. World Health Organization (2011) World report on disability. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240685215_eng.pdf?ua=1

  26. Paul GM, Cao F, Torah R, Yang K, Beeby S, Tudor J (2014) A smart textile based facial EMG and EOG computer interface. IEEE Sensors J 14(2):393–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Penaloza C, Mae Y, Ohara K, Arai T (2013) BMI-Based learning system for appliance control automation. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 3396–3402

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pinheiro CG, Andrade AO (2012) The simulation of click and double-click through EMG signals. In: 34th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 1984–1987

    Google Scholar 

  29. PLUX (2015) Opensignals (r)evolution user manual. http://www.bitalino.com/downloads/int-releases/opensignals_(r)evolution_manual.pdf

  30. Porter RS, Beers MH (2011) The merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Whitehouse Station, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rupp R, Kleih SC, Leeb R, del R Millan J, Kübler A, Müller-Putz GR (2014) Brain-Computer Interfaces and assistive technology. In: Grübler G, Hildt E (eds) Brain-computer interfaces in their ethical, social and cultural contexts. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 7–38

    Google Scholar 

  32. Silva H, Scherer R, Sousa J, Londral A (2012) Towards improving the usability of electromyographic interfaces. In: International conference on neurorehabilitation, pp 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  33. Silva H, Fred A, Martins R (2014a) Biosignals for everyone. IEEE Pervasive Comput 13(4):64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Silva H, Lourenço A, Fred A, Martins R (2014b) BIT: biosignal igniter toolkit. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 115:20–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Solnik S, Rider P, Steinweg K, DeVita P, Hortobágyi T (2010) Teager-kaiser energy operator signal conditioning improves EMG onset detection. Eur J Appl Physiol 110(3):489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Staude G, Flachenecker C, Daumer M, Wolf W (2001) Onset detection in surface electromyographic signals: a systematic comparison of methods. Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2:67–81

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Vaisman L, Zariffa J, Popovic MR (2010) Application of singular spectrum-based change-point analysis to EMG-onset detection. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20(4):750–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Superior Técnico, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Margarida Reis

  2. IT - Instituto de Telecomunicações, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Carlos Almeida & Rui M. Rocha

Authors
  1. Margarida Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rui M. Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margarida Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reis, M., Almeida, C. & Rocha, R.M. On the performance of surface electromyography-based onset detection methods with real data in assistive technologies. Multimed Tools Appl 77, 11491–11520 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4963-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4963-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation