ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimizing RNNs for EMG Signal Classification: A Novel Strategy Using Grey Wolf Optimization.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Models Optimization for Gait Phase Identification from EMG Data During Exoskeleton-Assisted Walking.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Electromyography Signals in Embedded Systems: A Review of Processing and Classification Techniques.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bioengineering of the Motor System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Knee Angle Estimation from Surface EMG during Walking Using Attention-Based Deep Recurrent Neural Networks: Feasibility and Initial Demonstration in Cerebral Palsy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate classification of electromyographic (EMG) signals is vital in biomedical applications. This study evaluates different architectures of recurrent neural networks for the classification of EMG signals associated with five movements of the right upper extremity. A Butterworth filter was implemented for signal preprocessing, followed by segmentation into 250 ms windows, with an overlap of 190 ms. The resulting dataset was divided into training, validation, and testing subsets. The Grey Wolf Optimization algorithm was applied to the gated recurrent unit (GRU), long short-term memory (LSTM) architectures, and bidirectional recurrent neural networks. In parallel, a performance comparison with support vector machines (SVMs) was performed. The results obtained in the first experimental phase revealed that all the RNN networks evaluated reached a 100% accuracy, standing above the 93% achieved by the SVM. Regarding classification speed, LSTM ranked as the fastest architecture, recording a time of 0.12 ms, followed by GRU with 0.134 ms. Bidirectional recurrent neural networks showed a response time of 0.2 ms, while SVM had the longest time at 2.7 ms. In the second experimental phase, a slight decrease in the accuracy of the RNN models was observed, standing at 98.46% for LSTM, 96.38% for GRU, and 97.63% for the bidirectional network. The findings of this study highlight the effectiveness and speed of recurrent neural networks in the EMG signal classification task.
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.