ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Simplified Optimal Estimation of Time-Varying Electromyogram Standard Deviation (EMGσ): Evaluation on Two Datasets.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved Surface Electromyogram-Based Hand-Wrist Force Estimation Using Deep Neural Networks and Cross-Joint Transfer Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A real-time and convex model for the estimation of muscle force from surface electromyographic signals in the upper and lower limbs.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Myoelectric Control Performance of Two Degree of Freedom Hand-Wrist Prosthesis by Able-Bodied and Limb-Absent Subjects.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To facilitate the broader use of EMG signal whitening, we studied four whitening procedures of various complexities, as well as the roles of sampling rate and noise correction. We separately analyzed force-varying and constant-force contractions from 64 subjects who completed constant-posture tasks about the elbow over a range of forces from 0% to 50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). From the constant-force tasks, we found that noise correction via the root difference of squares (RDS) method consistently reduced EMG recording noise, often by a factor of 5-10. All other primary results were from the force-varying contractions. Sampling at 4096 Hz provided small and statistically significant improvements over sampling at 2048 Hz (~3%), which, in turn, provided small improvements over sampling at 1024 Hz (~4%). In comparing equivalent processing variants at a sampling rate of 4096 Hz, whitening filters calibrated to the EMG spectrum of each subject generally performed best (4.74% MVC EMG-force error), followed by one universal whitening filter for all subjects (4.83% MVC error), followed by a high-pass filter whitening method (4.89% MVC error) and then a first difference whitening filter (4.91% MVC error)-but none of these statistically differed. Each did significantly improve from EMG-force error without whitening (5.55% MVC). The first difference is an excellent whitening option over this range of contraction forces since no calibration or algorithm decisions are required.
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.