ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019
A Comparative Study of Computational Methods for Compressed Sensing Reconstruction of EMG Signal.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Mechanical Properties through Compressed-Sensing Techniques.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Advanced Bioelectrical Signal Processing Methods: Past, Present, and Future Approach-Part III: Other Biosignals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Biosignal Sensors and Deep Learning-Based Speech Recognition: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Special Issue "Advanced Signal Processing in Intelligent Systems for Health Monitoring".Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable devices offer a convenient means to monitor biosignals in real time at relatively low cost, and provide continuous monitoring without causing any discomfort. Among signals that contain critical information about human body status, electromyography (EMG) signal is particular useful in monitoring muscle functionality and activity during sport, fitness, or daily life. In particular surface electromyography (sEMG) has proven to be a suitable technique in several health monitoring applications, thanks to its non-invasiveness and ease to use. However, recording EMG signals from multiple channels yields a large amount of data that increases the power consumption of wireless transmission thus reducing the sensor lifetime. Compressed sensing (CS) is a promising data acquisition solution that takes advantage of the signal sparseness in a particular basis to significantly reduce the number of samples needed to reconstruct the signal. As a large variety of algorithms have been developed in recent years with this technique, it is of paramount importance to assess their performance in order to meet the stringent energy constraints imposed in the design of low-power wireless body area networks (WBANs) for sEMG monitoring. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive comparative study of computational methods for CS reconstruction of EMG signals, giving some useful guidelines in the design of efficient low-power WBANs. For this purpose, four of the most common reconstruction algorithms used in practical applications have been deeply analyzed and compared both in terms of accuracy and speed, and the sparseness of the signal has been estimated in three different bases. A wide range of experiments are performed on real-world EMG biosignals coming from two different datasets, giving rise to two different independent case studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.