A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparative Study of sEMG Feature Evaluation Methods Based on the Hand Gesture Classification Performance. | LitMetric

Comparative Study of sEMG Feature Evaluation Methods Based on the Hand Gesture Classification Performance.

Sensors (Basel)

Professorship for Measurements and Sensor Technology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Rechenhainer Straße 70, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany.

Published: June 2024

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11175337PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s24113638DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

classification accuracy
16
feature evaluation
12
accuracy
9
evaluation methods
8
hand gesture
8
features
8
enhance classification
8
accuracy 9714%
8
accuracy 9738%
8
feature
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!