4.6 Article

Movement Stability Analysis of Surface Electromyography-Based Elbow Power Assistance

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 1134-1142

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2013.2295381

关键词

Assistive robots; movement stability; SEMG-based power assistance; surface electromyography (SEMG)

资金

  1. Public Welfare & Safety Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [20100020449]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0020449] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of power assistive devices that use surface electromyography (SEMG) signals may be limited by the noisy nature of SEMG signals. The aim of this study was to investigate the variation in human movement stability while the amount of SEMG-based assistive power was changed. A robotic device provided a torque that was proportional to the torque estimated by SEMG for assisting human movements, and 12 volunteers participated in the elbow flexion experiments. The maximum finitetime Lyapunov exponent (MFTLE), the average logarithmic rate of the divergence of neighboring trajectories, and the variability of the kinematic data were used to quantify the stability of the assisted elbow movements. The stability provided by the MFTLE decreased as the amount of assistive torque increased with respect to the amount of human torque. The kinematic variability increased with the increase in assistive torque. Therefore, by ensuring that the amount of SEMG-based assistive torque is less than the amount of human torque, the assistance may provide relatively natural movements. This study is the first to quantify movement stability as SEMG-based assistive power is applied. This study can provide a foundation for determining the appropriate amount of SEMG-based assistive power.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据