Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34248481›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Deep Learning-Based Approaches for Decoding Motor Intent From Peripheral Nerve Signals.

Diu K Luu, Anh T Nguyen, Ming Jiang, Jian Xu, Markus W Drealan, Jonathan Cheng, Edward W Keefer, Qi Zhao, Zhi Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Diu K LuuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Anh T NguyenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Ming JiangDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Jian XuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Markus W DrealanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Jonathan ChengDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
Edward W KeeferNerves Incorporated, Dallas, TX, United States.
Qi ZhaoDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Zhi YangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
University of Minnesota · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Evaluating and understanding the effects of deep brain stimulation using novel electrophysiology technique and device in Parkinson's diseaseR21NS111214 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PARK, MICHAEL C, YANG, ZHI · 2019 to 2019
$418k
NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS111214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous literature shows that deep learning is an effective tool to decode the motor intent from neural signals obtained from different parts of the nervous system. However, deep neural networks are often computationally complex and not feasible to work in real-time. Here we investigate different approaches' advantages and disadvantages to enhance the deep learning-based motor decoding paradigm's efficiency and inform its future implementation in real-time. Our data are recorded from the amputee's residual peripheral nerves. While the primary analysis is offline, the nerve data is cut using a sliding window to create a "pseudo-online" dataset that resembles the conditions in a real-time paradigm. First, a comprehensive collection of feature extraction techniques is applied to reduce the input data dimensionality, which later helps substantially lower the motor decoder's complexity, making it feasible for translation to a real-time paradigm. Next, we investigate two different strategies for deploying deep learning models: a one-step (1S) approach when big input data are available and a two-step (2S) when input data are limited. This research predicts five individual finger movements and four combinations of the fingers. The 1S approach using a recurrent neural network (RNN) to concurrently predict all fingers' trajectories generally gives better prediction results than all the machine learning algorithms that do the same task. This result reaffirms that deep learning is more advantageous than classic machine learning methods for handling a large dataset. However, when training on a smaller input data set in the 2S approach, which includes a classification stage to identify active fingers before predicting their trajectories, machine learning techniques offer a simpler implementation while ensuring comparably good decoding outcomes to the deep learning ones. In the classification step, either machine learning or deep learning models achieve the accuracy and F1 score of 0.99. Thanks to the classification step, in the regression step, both types of models result in a comparable mean squared error (MSE) and variance accounted for (VAF) scores as those of the 1S approach. Our study outlines the trade-offs to inform the future implementation of real-time, low-latency, and high accuracy deep learning-based motor decoder for clinical applications.

Indexed as

convolutional neural networkdeep learningfeature extractionmotor decodingneural decoderneuroprosthesisperipheral nerve interfacerecurrent neural network

Identifiers

PMID34248481
PMCPMC8260935
OpenAlexW3174557050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.