ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2021
Automated semi-real-time detection of muscle activity with ultrasound imaging.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MSK Ultrasound - An IJSPT Perspective.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound imaging (USI) biofeedback is a useful therapeutic tool; however, it relies on qualitative assessment by a trained therapist, while existing automatic analysis techniques are computationally demanding. This study aims to present a computationally inexpensive algorithm based on the difference in pixel intensity between USI frames. During an offline experiment, where data was analyzed after the study, participants performed isometric contractions of the gastrocnemius medialis (GM) muscle, as executed (30% of maximum contraction) or attempted (low force contraction up to a point when the participant is aware of exerting force or contracting the muscle) movements, while USI, EMG, and force data were recorded. The algorithm achieved 99% agreement with EMG and force measurements for executed movements and 93% for attempted movements, with USI detecting 1.9% more contractions than the other methods. In the online study, participants performed GM muscle contractions at 10% and 30% of maximum contraction, while the algorithm provided visual feedback proportional to the muscle activity (based on USI recordings during the maximum contraction) in less than 3 s following each contraction. We show that the participants reached the target consistently, learning to perform precise contractions. The algorithm is reliable and computationally very efficient, allowing real-time applications on standard computing hardware. It is a suitable method for automated detection, quantification of muscle contraction, and to provide biofeedback which can be used for training of targeted muscles, making it suitable for rehabilitation. Biofeedback session based on ultrasound imaging (USI) during muscle training. Novel, computationally inexpensive algorithm based on the difference in pixel intensity between USI frames is used to process the video and provide quantitative feedback on the strength of muscle contraction.
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.