ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Study of sEMG Feature Evaluation Methods Based on the Hand Gesture Classification Performance.
Article in Sensors (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.
- AI-Driven Hemodynamic Detection of Self-Induced Daydreaming With EMG-Based Physiological Triggers During Pre- and Post-Prandial States Using fNIRS and EGG.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Assessing the Resilience of sEMG Classifiers to Sensor Malfunction and Signal Saturation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Leveraging convolutional sparse autoencoders for robust movement classification from low-density sEMG.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Lightweight Frozen Multi-Convolution Dual-Branch Network for Efficient sEMG-Based Gesture Recognition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Overcoming behavioral variability in electromyography signals by an adaptive incremental classification approach.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Effective feature extraction and selection are crucial for the accurate classification and prediction of hand gestures based on electromyographic signals. In this paper, we systematically compare six filter and wrapper feature evaluation methods and investigate their respective impacts on the accuracy of gesture recognition. The investigation is based on several benchmark datasets and one real hand gesture dataset, including 15 hand force exercises collected from 14 healthy subjects using eight commercial sEMG sensors. A total of 37 time- and frequency-domain features were extracted from each sEMG channel. The benchmark dataset revealed that the minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR) feature evaluation method had the poorest performance, resulting in a decrease in classification accuracy. However, the RFE method demonstrated the potential to enhance classification accuracy across most of the datasets. It selected a feature subset comprising 65 features, which led to an accuracy of 97.14%. The Mutual Information (MI) method selected 200 features to reach an accuracy of 97.38%. The Feature Importance (FI) method reached a higher accuracy of 97.62% but selected 140 features. Further investigations have shown that selecting 65 and 75 features with the RFE methods led to an identical accuracy of 97.14%. A thorough examination of the selected features revealed the potential for three additional features from three specific sensors to enhance the classification accuracy to 97.38%. These results highlight the significance of employing an appropriate feature selection method to significantly reduce the number of necessary features while maintaining classification accuracy. They also underscore the necessity for further analysis and refinement to achieve optimal solutions.
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.