Suppr超能文献

基于模拟手动举升任务的表面肌电图数据处理方法的差异

[The difference of surface electromyography data processing method based on simulated manal-lifting-task].

作者信息

Xu Q, Zhong S W, Zhang X Y, Jia N, Qu Y, Zhang X, Wang Z X

机构信息

Department of Occupational Health Protection and Ergonomics, National Institute of Occupational Health and Poison Control, China CDC, Beijing 100050, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Sep 20;38(9):651-656. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20191030-00507.

Abstract

To study the differences of different signal processing method of surface electromyography (sEMG) in judging muscle fatigue. From July to October 2019, based on the model of simulated manual lifting operation, the original sEMG signals from 13 volunteers of brachial radial muscle, brachial two-headed muscle, triangle muscle, left vertical spine muscle, right vertical spine muscle and lateral femoral muscle were collected in the operation activities. Three different electromyography signal processing methods (all signal from motion beginning to the end, peak signal and ehe specified motion signal) were used to analyze the original data in time domain (RMS) and frequency domain (MDF) , the data difference between different electromyography signal processing methods was analyzed by using Wilcoxon rank and sum test and nonlinear curve fitting method. The age of the subjects of the simulated lifting operation was (24.31±2.02) years old, height (173.78±4.84) cm, weight (66.28±5.58) kg, body mass index (BMI) 21.94±1.58. The thickness of triceps skinfold was (14.08±4.86) mm, and the thickness of the skin fold under the scapula was (15.54±3.59) mm. After processing the original signal data by using different sEMG signal interception methods, the normality test, Levene's test, and the Wilcoxon test showed that, except for the MDF index of the brachial two-headed muscle, the differences in the RMS and MDF signals of the other muscles were statistically significant (<0.016) . The all signal processing method dealed with data distribution dispersion better than other methods, and the rate of change of RMS signal slope was higher than other methods. Non-linear regression results showed that all signal processing method had low volatility in processing data, and the regression equation had a high degree of fit. Different electromyography signal processing methods have differences. The all signal processing method which intercepts from starting point to the end point of action cycle has the least data volatility, and electromyography time domain and frequency domain index with the highest sensitivity of time, which is suitable for the application of surface electromyography to judge muscle fatigue in dynamic and complex operations.

摘要

研究表面肌电图(sEMG)不同信号处理方法在判断肌肉疲劳方面的差异。2019年7月至10月,基于模拟手工提举操作模型,在操作活动中采集了13名志愿者肱桡肌、肱二头肌、三角肌、左侧竖脊肌、右侧竖脊肌和股外侧肌的原始sEMG信号。采用三种不同的肌电信号处理方法(动作全程所有信号、峰值信号和指定动作信号)对原始数据进行时域(均方根值,RMS)和频域(中值频率,MDF)分析,运用Wilcoxon秩和检验及非线性曲线拟合方法分析不同肌电信号处理方法的数据差异。模拟提举操作受试者年龄为(24.31±2.02)岁,身高(173.78±4.84)cm,体重(66.28±5.58)kg,体重指数(BMI)21.94±1.58。肱三头肌皮褶厚度为(14.08±4.86)mm,肩胛下皮褶厚度为(15.54±3.59)mm。采用不同的sEMG信号截取方法对原始信号数据进行处理后,正态性检验、Levene检验和Wilcoxon检验结果显示,除肱二头肌的MDF指标外,其他肌肉的RMS和MDF信号差异均有统计学意义(<0.016)。全程所有信号处理方法的数据分布离散度处理效果优于其他方法,RMS信号斜率变化率高于其他方法。非线性回归结果显示,全程所有信号处理方法在处理数据时波动性较小,回归方程拟合度较高。不同的肌电信号处理方法存在差异。从动作周期起点到终点截取的全程所有信号处理方法数据波动性最小,且肌电时域和频域指标时间敏感性最高,适用于表面肌电图在动态复杂操作中判断肌肉疲劳的应用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验