1 / 1

scheme486f06

This study compares commonly used feature sets for motion classification in controlling powered upper-limb prostheses. Results show averages over motion classes from nondisabled individuals and those with transradial amputation.

marshall-monroe
Download Presentation

scheme486f06

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Figure 6. Comparison of commonly used feature sets. Results represent (a) average over 11 classes of motion collected from 10 nondisabled subjects and (b) average over 7 classes of motion collected from 5 subjects with transradial amputation. AR = autoregressive, MFCC = melscale frequency cepstral coefficients, TD = time-domain, TDAR = time-domain/autoregressive. Scheme E, Englehart K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: State of the art and challenges for clinical use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):643-60.DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2010.09.0177

More Related