↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Classification Techniques of EMG Signals during Isotonic and Isometric Contractions

Overview of attention for article published in Sensors, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
786 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Review of Classification Techniques of EMG Signals during Isotonic and Isometric Contractions
Published in
Sensors, August 2016
DOI 10.3390/s16081304
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nurhazimah Nazmi, Mohd Azizi Abdul Rahman, Shin-Ichiroh Yamamoto, Siti Anom Ahmad, Hairi Zamzuri, Saiful Amri Mazlan

Abstract

In recent years, there has been major interest in the exposure to physical therapy during rehabilitation. Several publications have demonstrated its usefulness in clinical/medical and human machine interface (HMI) applications. An automated system will guide the user to perform the training during rehabilitation independently. Advances in engineering have extended electromyography (EMG) beyond the traditional diagnostic applications to also include applications in diverse areas such as movement analysis. This paper gives an overview of the numerous methods available to recognize motion patterns of EMG signals for both isotonic and isometric contractions. Various signal analysis methods are compared by illustrating their applicability in real-time settings. This paper will be of interest to researchers who would like to select the most appropriate methodology in classifying motion patterns, especially during different types of contractions. For feature extraction, the probability density function (PDF) of EMG signals will be the main interest of this study. Following that, a brief explanation of the different methods for pre-processing, feature extraction and classifying EMG signals will be compared in terms of their performance. The crux of this paper is to review the most recent developments and research studies related to the issues mentioned above.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 786 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 783 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 147 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 127 16%
Student > Bachelor 123 16%
Researcher 51 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 3%
Other 84 11%
Unknown 227 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 319 41%
Computer Science 47 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 5%
Sports and Recreations 26 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 3%
Other 72 9%
Unknown 263 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2023.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sensors
#3,580
of 24,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,403
of 354,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sensors
#32
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.