↓ Skip to main content

Wavelet Packet Feature Assessment for High-Density Myoelectric Pattern Recognition and Channel Selection toward Stroke Rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Wavelet Packet Feature Assessment for High-Density Myoelectric Pattern Recognition and Channel Selection toward Stroke Rehabilitation
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dongqing Wang, Xu Zhang, Xiaoping Gao, Xiang Chen, Ping Zhou

Abstract

This study presents wavelet packet feature assessment of neural control information in paretic upper limb muscles of stroke survivors for myoelectric pattern recognition, taking advantage of high-resolution time-frequency representations of surface electromyogram (EMG) signals. On this basis, a novel channel selection method was developed by combining the Fisher's class separability index and the sequential feedforward selection analyses, in order to determine a small number of appropriate EMG channels from original high-density EMG electrode array. The advantages of the wavelet packet features and the channel selection analyses were further illustrated by comparing with previous conventional approaches, in terms of classification performance when identifying 20 functional arm/hand movements implemented by 12 stroke survivors. This study offers a practical approach including paretic EMG feature extraction and channel selection that enables active myoelectric control of multiple degrees of freedom with paretic muscles. All these efforts will facilitate upper limb dexterity restoration and improved stroke rehabilitation.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,353,668
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,832
of 11,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#348,528
of 414,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#44
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 414,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.