Upload
aband-da
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
1/164
1
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ELECTROMYOGRAM-BASED CONTROLLER FOR
FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL STIMULATION-ASSISTED WALKING AFTER PARTIALPARALYSIS
By
ANIRBAN DUTTA
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Ronald J. Triolo
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Biomedical Engineering
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
August, 2008
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
2/164
2
To the Almighty, Baba, Ma, Kiran, and Rachna
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
3/164
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8
Introduction....................................................................................................................................13
Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) for ambulation........................................................13Electromyogram as a command source for FES-controller for ambulation after iSCI ..........14
Electromyogram-based trigger for the FES-controller: specific objectives of the
work .............................................................................................................................16
Overview of the chapters........................................................................................................17References...............................................................................................................................17
Evaluation of surface electromyogram from partially paralyzed muscles as a commandsource for functional electrical stimulation ............................................................................20
Abstract...................................................................................................................................20
Introduction.............................................................................................................................21
Methods ..................................................................................................................................22Subjects............................................................................................................................22
Test of Controllability .....................................................................................................23
Test of Discriminability...................................................................................................24
Statistical Analysis ..........................................................................................................28
Results.....................................................................................................................................29 Results from the Test of Controllability..........................................................................29
Results from the Test of Discriminability .......................................................................30
Discussion...............................................................................................................................32
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................33
References...............................................................................................................................34
Figures ....................................................................................................................................37
Tables......................................................................................................................................46
Feasibility analysis of surface EMG-triggered FES-assisted ambulation after incomplete
spinal cord injury ....................................................................................................................50
Abstract...................................................................................................................................50
Introduction.............................................................................................................................50
Methods ..................................................................................................................................52Subjects............................................................................................................................52
Data Acquisition and Processing.....................................................................................53
Muscle Selection .............................................................................................................55
Classifier Development and Offline Testing...................................................................56
Classifier Testing During FES-assisted Ambulation.......................................................58
Results.....................................................................................................................................59
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
4/164
4
Classifier Performance ....................................................................................................59
Repeatability of the Classifier Performance....................................................................60Discussion...............................................................................................................................60
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................62References...............................................................................................................................63
Figures ....................................................................................................................................66
Surface EMG-triggered FES-assisted gait parameters during over-ground walking in thelaboratory................................................................................................................................73
Abstract...................................................................................................................................73
Introduction.............................................................................................................................74
Methods ..................................................................................................................................75
Subjects............................................................................................................................75
Gait Data Acquisition......................................................................................................76Gait Parameters ...............................................................................................................78
Statistical Analysis ..........................................................................................................79
Results.....................................................................................................................................80 Discussion...............................................................................................................................81
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................83
References...............................................................................................................................84
Figures ....................................................................................................................................85
Tables......................................................................................................................................90
Coordination and stability of surface EMG-triggered FES-assisted overground walking in
the laboratory..........................................................................................................................92
Abstract...................................................................................................................................92
Introduction.............................................................................................................................92
Methods ..................................................................................................................................95
Subjects............................................................................................................................95 Gait Data Acquisition......................................................................................................95
Coordination and Stability Analysis of Gait initiation ....................................................98
Results...................................................................................................................................103
Linear regression model for gait initiation ....................................................................103
Coordination and stability during FES-assisted gait initiation......................................104
Discussion.............................................................................................................................105 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................109
References.............................................................................................................................110Figures ..................................................................................................................................113
Development of an implanted intramuscular EMG-triggered FES-system for ambulationafter incomplete spinal cord injury.......................................................................................123
Abstract.................................................................................................................................123 Introduction...........................................................................................................................124
Methods ................................................................................................................................126
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
5/164
5
Subjects..........................................................................................................................126
Command source selection............................................................................................127Implantation of intramuscular EMG electrode..............................................................129
Classifier development for iEMG-triggered FES-assisted stepping .............................130Online testing of the classifier in the laboratory ...........................................................134
Results...................................................................................................................................136
Muscles and location selection for intramuscular EMG ...............................................136
Classifier development and online performance ...........................................................137
Discussion.............................................................................................................................142
Conclusions...........................................................................................................................145
References.............................................................................................................................146
Figures ..................................................................................................................................149Tables....................................................................................................................................163
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
6/164
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
Table 2.1: The mean, the minimum, and the maximum average absolute tracking error in
%MVC during the four parts (0-25 sec, 25-50 sec, 50-75 sec, 75-100 sec) of the Testfor Controllability. The p-value from the one-way two-tailed ANOVA test for the
average tracking error over the whole trial (100 sec) was not statistically significant( 0.01)...............................................................................................................................46
Table 2.2: The results from the Test of Discriminability for the muscles Gluteus Medius
(GM), Biceps Femoris (BF), Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Rectus Femoris (RF),
Tibialis Anterior (TA), and Erector Spinae (ES at T9) are presented for the able-
bodied subjects. The Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the
corresponding Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) ofthe DI over 10 random partitions (i.e., 10-fold cross-validation) was similar in
magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W). There
were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to themuscle type as well as the classifier type...........................................................................47
Table 2.3a: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-1 for the left step classifier.The Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the corresponding value of
the Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI was
similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W).
There were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to
the muscle type as well as the classifier type.....................................................................48
Table 2.3b: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-1 for the right step. The
Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the corresponding value of the
Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI was
similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W).There were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to
the muscle type as well as the classifier type.....................................................................48
Table 2.4a: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-2 for the left step. The
Wilcoxon statistic (W) and the corresponding value of the Discriminability Index
(DI) were similar. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI and the Standard Error
(SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W) were similar. There were statistically
significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well
as the classifier type. ..........................................................................................................49
Table 2.4 b: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-2 for the right step
classifier. The Wilcoxon statistic (W) and the corresponding value of the
Discriminability Index (DI) were similar. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI and
the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W) were similar. Therewere statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the
muscle type as well as the classifier type...........................................................................49
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
7/164
7
Table 4.1: The Mean, Standard Deviation (S.D), coefficient of variation (C.V.), 95%
confidence interval (95% C.I.) over 10 trials (N=10) of the EMG-triggered andswitch-triggered gait parameters gait speed (m/s), left step length (m), right step
length (m), left double support duration (s), right double support duration (s), leftswing phase duration (s), right swing phase duration (s) for the subject iSCI 1. [
statistically significant (p
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
8/164
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
Figure 2.1: Experimental setup for the Test of Controllability of the surface EMG from
Rectus Femoris using visual pursuit tasks while the knee is fixed in a dynamometer. .....37
Figure 2.2: Experimental setup for surface EMG data collection with switch-triggered FES-
assisted overground walking..............................................................................................38
Figure 2.3: Experimental protocol for surface EMG data collection during overground
walking, where the subject had to start from standing and achieve a self-selected gaitspeed within 5m. ................................................................................................................39
Figure 2.4: The left column shows the cumulative distribution function for the three cases,1,15.0,5.00 =
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
9/164
9
shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index with their
critical values from Scheffes S procedure for different classifiers PatternRecognition Classifier (PRC) and Threshold-based Classifier (TC) obtained from the
Test of Discriminability of the left and the right step classifiers of iSCI-1.......................44
Figure 2.9: Top panel shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the DiscriminabilityIndex with their critical values from Scheffes S procedure for the muscles Gluteus
Medius (GM), Biceps Femoris (BF), Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Rectus Femoris(RF), Tibialis Anterior (TA), and Erector Spinae (ES at T9) obtained from the Test
of Discriminability of the left and right step classifiers of iSCI-2. The bottom panel
shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index with their
critical values from Scheffes S procedure for different classifiers Pattern
Recognition Classifier (PRC) and Threshold-based Classifier (TC) obtained from the
Test of Discriminability of the left and the right step classifiers of iSCI-2.......................45
Figure 3.1: a) X-ray of the iSCI subject implanted with implantable receiver-stimulator
(IRS-8) b) iSCI subject stepping with the switch-triggered FES system ..........................66
Figure 3.2: Experimental setup for testing EMG-triggered FES-assisted walking with the
block-diagram for the EMG-triggered FES-system (ECU: external control unit, LE:linear envelope)..................................................................................................................67
Figure 3.3: Processing of the sampled EMG from Erector Spinae for training the classifier a)rectified and reconstructed EMG signal b) linear envelope found from processed
EMG signal ........................................................................................................................68
Figure 3.4: Muscle selection for the classifier using receiver operating characteristics curve
from switch-triggered FES-assisted gait data (FS: Foot-Strike, FO: Foot-Off) a)
linear envelope (LE) indicating class True b) linear envelope (LE) indicating class
False ................................................................................................................................69
Figure 3.5: Receiver operating characteristics curve of the classifiers using the test data ............70
Figure 3.6: State transition diagram of the EMG-based FES-controller .......................................71
Figure 3.7: Offline testing of the classifier using receiver operating characteristics curve a)
time-error (negative means prediction) in detection of foot-off by the classifier b)
duration of the gait phases (Left DS: double support phase following left swingphase, Right DS: double support phase following right swing phase, SW: swing
phase) .................................................................................................................................72
Figure 4.1: Experimental setup for testing EMG-triggered FES-assisted walking with the
block-diagram for the EMG-triggered FES-system (ECU: external control unit). ...........85
Figure 4.2: EMG-based gait event detector for triggering FES-assisted steps. ............................86
Figure 4.3: Plot of the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) between the low-pass filtered and
unfiltered foot progression in sagittal plane with cut-off frequencies to find the
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
10/164
10
optimum cut-off frequency for low-pass filtering the gait kinematics data. Optimum
cut-off frequency was found to be 3.5 Hz for iSCI data. ...................................................87
Figure 4.4: Gait data collection protocol in laboratory conditions where the subject had tostart from standing and achieve a self-selected gait speed within Vicon
TMvolume of
data capture (~5m). ............................................................................................................88
Figure 4.5: Boxplot of average body weight support provided by the walker during EMG-
triggered (N=10 trials) and switch-triggered (N=10 trials) gait normalized by themean of that during EMG-triggered trials of iSCI 2. The box shows the lower
quartile, median, and upper quartile with whiskers extending at each end showing the
range of the data. The notches around the median show the estimate of the
uncertainty. The boxes whose notches dont overlap indicate that their medians differ
at 5% significance level. ....................................................................................................89
Figure 5.1: Laboratory setup for EMG-triggered FES-assisted walking shown with a
flowchart for the EMG-based gait event detector for triggering FES-assisted steps.......113
Figure 5.2: Top panel: Selection of optimum cut-off frequencies for low-pass filtering the
kinematic data. Bottom panel: Most of power content in the signals was below the
optimum cut-off frequency, which were 6 Hz for able-bodied and 3.5 Hz for iSCI
data...................................................................................................................................114
Figure 5.3: Gait initiation protocol during the data collection.....................................................115
Figure 5.4: Typical pelvis motion in the direction of progression during gait initiation.............116
Figure 5.5: Euclidean distance from the origin of the perturbation of the 36 states during gait
initiation at the maximum left knee flexion. Left panel: able-bodied data (4 subjects).Middle panel: iSCI data (subject C1). Right panel: iSCI data (subject C2).
[Normative: 4 subjects, 10 trials each; iSCI EMG-trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials each;iSCI Switch-trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials each; iSCI Auto-trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials
each].................................................................................................................................117
Figure 5.6: Percent Variance Accounted For (%VAF) by the Principal Components (PC).Top panel: able-bodied data. Middle panel: iSCI-1 walking with EMG, switch, and
auto triggered FES. Bottom panel: iSCI-2 walking with EMG, switch, and auto
triggered FES. All the plots show the data averaged over 6 gait events..........................118
Figure 5.7: Typical loading of the first 3 Principal Components (PCs) on the joint angles
(HA: Hip Angle, KA: Knee Angle, AA: Ankle Angle) found from the weight
matrix W of the subject Able1. The prefix l indicates the left side and r indicatesthe right side. The suffix x denotes sagittal plane, y denotes frontal plane, and z
denotes transverse plane for the joint angles. ..................................................................119
Figure 5.8: Euclidean distance from the origin of the perturbation of the 5 principalcomponents at maximum left knee flexion Left panel: able-bodied (4 subjects).
Middle panel: iSCI-1 subject C1. Right panel: iSCI-2 subject C2. [Normative: 4
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
11/164
11
subjects, 10 trials each; iSCI EMG-trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials each; iSCI Switch-
trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials each; iSCI Auto-trigger: 2 subjects, 10 trials each] ............120
Figure 5.9: Top panel: Scatter plot of QoF and Av. Eig. at 6 gait events for the groups; the 4able-bodied subjects: Able1, Able2, Able3, Able4, and the 2 iSCI subjects with
different trigger modes: EMG1, EMG2, SW1, SW2, Auto1, Auto2. Bottom panel:MANOVA cluster dendrogram plot of the groups ..........................................................121
Figure 5.10: Mahalanobis distances matrix between each pair of group means .........................122
Figure 6.1: Experimental setup for data collection during FES-assisted walking with the
block-diagram for the FES-system (ECU: external control unit, LE: linear envelope)...149
Figure 6.2: Processing of the sampled surface EMG a) rectified and reconstructed sEMG
signal b) linear envelope found from processed sEMG signal. .......................................150
Figure 6.3: Experimental protocol for the collection of EMG data during over-groundwalking in the laboratory. ................................................................................................151
Figure 6.4: Multi-electrode matrix for simultaneous collection of the surface EMG frommultiple locations on the muscle belly.............................................................................152
Figure 6.5: The steps during the implantation of intramuscular EMG electrode a) insertion of
probe, b) deployment of peelable sheath over probe, c) insertion of the iEMG
electrode through the peelable sheath, d) peeling off of the polymer sheath leaving
the iEMG electrode in place. ...........................................................................................153
Figure 6.6: Pulse-width map of the stimulation patterns used for walking shown as an
example............................................................................................................................154
Figure 6.7: The real-time cycle in IST with 50 ms time period for stimulation frequency of
20 Hz................................................................................................................................155
Figure 6.8: Parameters for the iEMG classifier computed from the training data that was
collected with the switch-triggered FES system..............................................................156
Figure 6.9: The flow chart of the iEMG-based two-stage classifier for triggering FES for
walking.............................................................................................................................157
Figure 6.10: Usability Rating Scale to find the user perspective on ease/difficulty of using
the classifier [6.29]...........................................................................................................158
Figure 6.11: Best location found from the surface EMG for implanting intramuscular EMG
electrodes a) Left gastrocnemius and right erector spinae b) Left and right
gastrocnemius. .................................................................................................................159
Figure 6.12: a) Discriminability Index (DI) of left medial gastrocnemius (MG) for the swing
phase (SW) and double support phase (DS) during over-ground walking for the
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
12/164
12
subject iSCI-1 at each data point of the gait cycle b) Discriminability Index (DI) of
right erector spinae (ES) for the swing phase (SW) and double support phase (DS)during over-ground walking for the subject iSCI-1 at each data point of the gait
cycle. ................................................................................................................................160
Figure 6.13: Inhibition of iEMG from right erector spinae during right swing phase (SW) asshown in the top panel due to electrical stimulation of the same muscle when
compared to that in absence of electrical stimulation shown in the bottom panel ofthe subject iSCI-1.............................................................................................................161
Figure 6.14b: a) Discriminability Index (DI) of right medial gastrocnemius (MG) for the
swing phase (SW) and double support phase (DS) during over-ground walking for
the subject iSCI-2 at each data point of the gait cycle b) Discriminability Index (DI)
of left medial gastrocnemius (MG) for the swing phase (SW) and double support
phase (DS) during over-ground walking for the subject iSCI-2 at each data point ofthe gait cycle. ...................................................................................................................162
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
13/164
13
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) for ambulation
Paralysis can be caused by an injury to the spinal cord that may partially or completely
damage the communication between the brain and the muscles. The spinal cord injury (SCI) can
be complete or incomplete based on the extent of damage to the communication channels
between the brain and the lower motor neurons below the level of injury. There are
approximately 250,000 people living with SCI in USA and about 11,000 new cases each year
[1.1]. If the paralyzed muscles below the level of injury remain innervated after the injury then
they can be electrically activated by applying a series of electrical current pulses. Functional
Electrical Stimulation (FES) refers to the application of electrical pulses to restore
neuromuscular function after paralysis. FES was first used by Liberson for actuating paralyzed
limbs [1.2]. FES has been successful in providing walking function to spinal cord injured
individuals with limited or no walking abilities [1.3]. Most of the commercially available FES-
systems as well as the one that is currently used by our group needs user input to select menu
options and to trigger FES-assisted stepping action. The current command interface for our FES-
system is a push-button, which can be mounted on the walker or worn on a finger [1.4-1.7]. The
push-button as a command interface is plausible for selecting menu options during standing but it
is an impediment when it has to be actuated with fingers during walking to trigger every step.
Some individuals with limited finger and hand function find it difficult to press push-buttons,
more so while trying to maintain balance during ambulation. This particular function of the push-
button as a trigger for stepping action can be replaced by a gait event detector. The gait event
detector can identify the event (appropriate time during a gait cycle) to activate the required
pattern of electrical stimulation. Some of the gait event detectors investigated in past by other
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
14/164
14
researchers are based on foot-switches, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and the electromyogram
(EMG)/electroneurogram (ENG) [1.8-1.16]. We decided to investigate electromyogram (EMG)
since it temporally precedes the joint kinetics and kinematics (electromechanical delay about 100
ms [1.17]) and may be feasible as a control source even for individuals with incomplete spinal
cord injury (iSCI), who may have lost their ability to move but may still have volitionally
controllable EMG activity [1.18]. The natural latency between electrophysiological and
biomechanical events provides time to detect the intent and then assist the intended movement
with FES. EMG-based triggering of FES patterns should integrate the FES-generated movement
seamlessly with the volitional effort that is necessary in the case of iSCI individuals who have
some sensory and motor function below the level of injury.
Electromyogram as a command source for FES-controller for ambulation after iSCI
The gait is roughly a cyclic process which can be divided into stepping of one side
followed by the other. A step defines the phase of the gait between foot-off that is the instant
when foot loses contact with the ground to the foot-off of the contralateral limb. Gait is
nevertheless a dynamic process where the steps dynamics are not isolated but one step leads to
the other steps in terms of the dynamics of the locomotor system. The transition between the
steps involves energy injection through push-off that generates a burst of energy causing the foot
to plantarflex and shifts the body towards the contralateral limb and subsequently allowing the
limb to swing forward. The push-off correlates with a burst in the muscle activity over multiple
synergist muscles, mainly the ankle plantar-flexors. Electromyogram (EMG) is the time history
of electrical activity in the muscle that can be used to find the activation of the muscles. The
burst in the muscle acitivity during the push-off produces burst in the volitional EMG of all the
synergist muscles which have a pattern of activation during the transition phase of gait (i.e. left
to right step and right to left step transitions). This synergistic modulation of the volitional EMG,
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
15/164
15
if present in partially paralyzed muscles, can be used as a feature template to identify the intent
to transition from the left to right step and right to left step even when partially paralyzed
muscles are too weak to produce enough moment at the joint to produce effective push-off.
Prior work has shown that the EMG synergies found by principal component analysis can
provide information related to gait events and also gait-speed [1.19]. Transition specific EMG
features can be identified using principal component analysis which can then be used to identify
the transition phase of the gait. A binary classifier to trigger the transition from left to the right
step and vice versa can be trained with the parameters from correlation analysis of the EMG
pattern with transition specific EMG feature template. The correlation coefficients of the features
associated with these transitions are postulated to be clustered in the feature space. During online
operation, the classifier will have to identify the cluster from windowed EMG using cross-
correlation with the specified features and determine the intended transition. This method can
be conceptually extended to identify the transitions to other tasks like side-stepping, stair-
climbing, different gait-speeds etc. It is postulated that EMG-triggered FES-controller will have
an impact on the coordination of the FES-assisted iSCI gait. Seamlessly integrating the FES-
generated movement with the volitional movement should significantly enhance the transitions
from one gait phase to the other during walking.
There are challenges associated with the implementation of this method. The nature of
motor deficits in incomplete SCI population is very heterogeneous. Some individuals can walk to
a certain extent with upper-body support, some can stand using the extensor tone and some are
completely non-ambulatory. The partially paralyzed muscles had to be selected appropriately
such that the volitional EMG from those muscles had enough information to identify the gait
phase transitions. The EMG had to be blanked during the stimulation to remove stimulation
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
16/164
16
artifact that reduced the information content in the EMG. This may produce overlapping clusters
in EMG feature space that will be difficult to classify with low false positive rate. More EMG
channels (more than preferred two) may be needed in order to reduce the false positive rate in
that case. In this study, the enhanced coordination during ambulation was investigated by
dynamical systems tools like return map analysis [1.20]. Subjective impressions of the two
controllers were captured by a Usability Rating Scale (URS) [1.21].
Electromyogram-based trigger for the FES-controller: specific objectives of the work
The overall goal was to develop and evaluate an EMG-based trigger for the FES-controller
which can assist volitional motor function synergistically with electrical stimulation during gait.
The overall goal was divided into three specific aims.
Aim 1 - Muscle selection for EMG-based trigger: Select a set of two partially paralyzed
muscles in individuals with iSCI that yield consistent and reliable command information for
FES-assisted gait.
Hypothesis 1: The two partially paralyzed muscles will have volitionally controllable
EMG pattern similar to that in able-bodied individuals.
1. The iSCI subjects have volitional control over the surface EMG from the partially
paralyzed muscles that are comparable to able-bodied controls.
2. The iSCI subjects have EMG pattern in 2 partially paralyzed muscles with enough
information to identify the gait phase transitions during over-ground walking.
Aim 2 - Feasibility analysis of EMG-triggered FES-assisted ambulation: Development
and online-testing of a FES-controller for ambulation with a surface EMG-based classifier for
triggering FES-assisted steps in subjects with iSCI.
Hypothesis 2: It was hypothesized that two muscles can be used to detect intention for
foot-off with false-positive rate less that 2 % and true-positive rate greater than 85 %.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
17/164
17
Aim 3 - Evaluation of EMG-triggered FES-assisted gait: Compare the FES-assisted gait
with the surface EMG-triggered FES-controller with the switch-triggered one with dynamical
systems tools like return map analysis and subjective tools like Usability Rating Scale to evaluate
enhancement in coordination, especially during the gait phase transitions.
Hypothesis 3: EMG-triggered FES-controller will enhance the FES-assisted over-ground
ambulation when compared to switch-triggered one.
Overview of the chapters
Chapter 2 addresses Hypothesis 1 and discusses the evaluation of surface electromyogram
from partially paralyzed muscles as a command source for triggering FES-assisted steps during
walking.
Chapter 3 addresses Hypothesis 2 and assesses the feasibility of triggering FES-assisted
steps with surface EMG-based classifier running in real-time during over-ground ambulation.
Chapter 4 and 5 address Hypothesis 3 and compare EMG-triggered FES-assisted gait to
switch-triggered stepping. Chapter 4 discusses the gait parameters during over-ground walking in
the laboratory. Chapter 5 discusses the coordination and stability during stand-to-walk transition
in the laboratory.
Chapter 6 presents a proof-of-concept implementation of a simple binary classifier based
on intramuscular EMG from a completely implanted neuroprosthesis using methods developed
in the earlier chapters for triggering FES-assisted steps with a fully implantable FES system.
References
1.1. SCIIN, Spinal cord injury: facts and figures at a glance - June 2005. 2005, Spinal CordInjury Information Network.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
18/164
18
1.2. W. T. Liberson, H. J. Holmquest, D. Scott, M.Dow, Functional electrotherapy: stimulationof the peroneal nerve synchronized with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegicpatients, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, vol. 42, 1961, pp. 101-105.
1.3. R. Kobetic, R. J. Triolo, J. P. Uhlir, C. Bieri, M. Wibowo, G. Polando, E. B. Marsolais, J.A. Davis Jr., K. A. Ferguson, and M. Sharma, Implanted Functional Electrical StimulationSystem for Mobility in Paraplegia: A Follow-Up Case Report, IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng.,
vol. 7, no. 4, Dec. 1999, pp. 390398.
1.4. B. Smith, Z. Tang, M.W. Johnson, S. Pourmehdi, M.M. Gazdik, J.R. Buckett, and P.H.Peckham, An externally powered, multichannel, implantable stimulator-telemeter for
control of paralyzed muscle, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng., vol. 45, no. 4, 1998, pp. 463-475.
1.5. Z. Tang, B. Smith, J.H. Schild, and P.H. Peckham, Data transmission from an implantable
biotelemeter by load-shift keying using circuit configuration modulator, IEEE TransBiomed Eng., vol. 42, no. 5, 1995, pp. 525-528.
1.6. N. Bhadra, K.L. Kilgore, and P.H. Peckham, Implanted stimulators for restoration offunction in spinal cord injury, Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 23, 2001, pp. 19-28.
1.7. J. Knutson, M. Audu, and R. Triolo, Interventions for mobility and manipulation afterspinal cord injury: a review of orthotic and neuroprosthetic options, Topics in Spinal Cord
Rehab, in press.
1.8. J. R.W. Morris, Accelerometry a technique for the measurement of human bodymovements, J Biomech., vol. 6, 1973, pp. 72936.
1.9. I. P. Pappas, M. R. Popovic, T. Keller, V. Dietz, and M. Morari, A reliable gait phasedetection system, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, Jun. 2001, pp.113-125.
1.10.A. Mansfield, and G. M. Lyons, The use of accelerometry to detect heel contact events foruse as a sensor in FES assisted walking, Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 25, no. 10, Dec. 2003, pp.879-885.
1.11.R. Williamson, and B. J. Andrews, Gait event detection for FES using accelerometers andsupervised machine learning, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 8,
2000, pp. 312319.
1.12.T. Sinkjaer, M. Haugland, A. Inman, M. Hansen, and K. D. Nielsen, Biopotentials ascommand and feedback signals in functional electrical stimulation systems, Med. Eng.
Phys., vol 25, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 29-40.
1.13.R. T. Lauer, R. T. Smith, and R. R. Betz, Application of a neuro-fuzzy network for gaitevent detection using electromyography in the child with cerebral palsy, IEEE Trans.
Rehabil. Eng., vol. 52, no. 9, Sep. 2005, pp. 15321540.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
19/164
19
1.14.D. Graupe, and H. Kordylewski, Artificial neural network control of FES in paraplegicsfor patient responsive ambulation, IEEE Trans. Biomed Eng., vol. 42, no. 7, Jul. 1995, pp.699-707.
1.15.R. J. Triolo, and G. D. Moskowitz, The theoretical development of a multichannel time-series myoprocessor for simultaneous limb function detection and muscle forceestimation, IEEE Trans. Biomed Eng., vol. 36, no. 10, Oct. 1989, pp. 1004-1017.
1.16.A. Dutta, R. Kobetic, and R. J. Triolo, EMG based triggering and modulation ofstimulation patterns for FES assisted ambulation a conceptual study, presented at XXth
Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics, Cleveland, OH, Aug. 2005.
1.17.S. Zhou, M. F. Carey, R. J. Snow, D. L. Lawson, and W. E. Morrison, Effects of musclefatigue and temperature on electromechanical delay, Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol.,
vol 38, no. 2, Mar. 1998, pp. 67-73.
1.18.A. Dutta, and R. J. Triolo, Volitional surface EMG based control of FES-assisted gait afterincomplete spinal cord injury a single case feasibility study, presented at NIH Neural
Interfaces Workshop, Bethesda, MD, Sep. 2005.
1.19.A. Hof, H. Elzinga, W. Grimmius, and J. Halbertsma, Speed dependence of averagedEMG pro-files in walking, Gait and Posture, vol. 16, 2002, pp. 7886.
1.20.Y. Hurmuzlu, and C. Basdogan, On the measurement of stability in human locomotion,ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 116, 1994, pp. 30-36.
1.21. E. Steinfeld, G. Danford, Eds. Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact ofEnvironment on Disability and Rehabilitation. Kluwer/Plenum, 1999.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
20/164
20
CHAPTER 2
EVALUATION OF SURFACE ELECTROMYOGRAM FROM PARTIALLY PARALYZEDMUSCLES AS A COMMAND SOURCE FOR FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL
STIMULATION
Abstract
Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) facilitates ambulatory function after paralysis by
electrically activating the muscles of the lower extremities by exciting the peripheral motor
nerves. The FES-assisted stepping can be triggered by a manual switch or by a gait event
detector (GED). The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the surface
electromyogram (EMG) from partially paralyzed muscles for detecting the intent to step during
level over-ground walking. Two subjects with incomplete spinal cord injuries (iSCI) and four
able-bodied subjects volunteered for this study. Subject iSCI-1 (age 23 years, C6 ASIA C) was
non-ambulatory without the assistance of FES. Subject iSCI-2 (age 34 years, T1 ASIA D) could
walk only short distances without FES. The four able-bodied subjects, Able-1 (age 26 years),
Able-2 (age 25 years), Able-3 (age 25 years) and Able-4 (age 54 years) had no known injury or
pathology to either lower extremity during the study. Partially paralyzed muscles showed
performance similar (one-way two-tailed ANOVA, p
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
21/164
21
Introduction
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) provides an opportunity for brace-free ambulation
to wheelchair dependent individuals with incomplete spinal cord injuries (iSCI). FES systems
can electrically activate a customized set of muscles selected to address individual gait deficits
with pre-programmed patterns of stimulation to produce cyclic movement of the lower
extremities for ambulation [2.1], [2.2]. Users normally use a switch to manually trigger each step
and progress through the customized pattern of stimulation to achieve walking function. In this
study we evaluated the controllability (the ability to volitionally modulate the surface
electromyogram (EMG) in a visual pursuit task) and discriminability (the ability to determine the
intent to step during level overground walking) of the surface EMG from both able-bodied
volunteers and individuals with iSCI. Our goal was to specify a process and criterion for
selecting two muscles for a new command and control interface that can be implemented with
two channels of implanted EMG recording electrodes with our next family of implantable
stimulator-telemeters (IST) [2.3-2.6]. This report summarizes the evaluation of the surface EMG
from partially paralyzed muscles of two subjects with iSCI and its comparison with normative
data from 4 able-bodied subjects.
While gait event detection is possible with physical sensors such as force sensitive
resistors, accelerometers, gyroscopes [2.7], [2.8], biopotentials such as EMG can also provide
useful and reliable information [2.9-2.11]. The EMG temporally precedes the generation of force
in a muscle and the resulting movement of a joint. This makes EMG an attractive signal for
detection of intent and can allow the desired movement to be assisted by FES. Graupe and
Kordylewski presented a neural network based classifier with on-line learning capabilities for
individuals with complete paraplegia [2.11], [2.12]. Thorsen et al. showed improved wrist
extension with stimulation controlled by surface EMG from partially paralyzed wrist extensors
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
22/164
22
[2.13]. Futami et al. showed the feasibility of proportional control of FES with the surface EMG
from the same muscle (partially paralyzed knee extensors) in incomplete hemiplegia [2.14]. Our
preliminary study demonstrated the feasibility of FES-assisted walking triggered by the surface
EMG during double-support phase of gait (when both the feet are on ground) [2.5]. A
quantitative method is presented in this paper to evaluate the electromyogram from partially
paralyzed muscles as a command source for triggering FES-assisted steps during ambulation.
Methods
Subjects
Two male subjects with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) volunteered for this study.
iSCI-1 was a 23 years old male with C7 motor and C6 sensory incomplete spinal cord injury
(ASIA C) who could stand but could not initiate a step without the assistance from FES. iSCI-2
was a 34 years old male with T1 motor and C6 sensory incomplete spinal cord injury (ASIA D)
who could walk only short distances without the assistance from FES. They each received an 8
channel Implantable Receiver Stimulator (IRS-8) and eight surgically implanted intramuscular
electrodes in a related study designed to facilitate household and limited community ambulation
[2.15]. The four able-bodied subjects, Able-1 (age 26 years), Able-2 (age 25 years), Able-3 (age
25 years) and Able-4 (age 54 years) provided the normative data for comparison. They had no
known injury or pathology to either lower extremity during the course of the study.
The subject iSCI-1 received intramuscular stimulating electrodes bilaterally recruiting
iliopsoas, vastus intermedius and lateralis, tensor fasciae latae, tibialis anterior, and peroneus
longus muscles. The subject iSCI-2 received stimulation electrodes only on his left side
recruiting iliopsoas, vastus intermedius and lateralis, tensor fasciae latae, gluteus medius, gluteus
maximus, posterior portion of adductor magnus, and tibialis anterior (2 electrodes). Temporal
patterns of stimulation to activate the muscles were customized for their particular gait deficits
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
23/164
23
according to established tuning procedures in order to achieve forward stepping in a rolling
walker [2.16], [2.17]. The subjects completed 6 weeks of over-ground gait training (2 hour
sessions, 3 times per week) with a physical therapist using the implanted FES system. After
discharge from rehabilitation, they volunteered for the studies using the myoelectric control of
the FES system.
Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects before their participation and all study
related procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Louis Stokes
Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
Test of Controllability
Controllability was defined as the ability to modulate the EMG activity from one level to
another in a finite time during a visual pursuit task. The experimental setup for evaluating the
controllability of a muscle with biofeedback is shown in Figure 2.1. The surface EMG was
collected from the rectus femoris while the subject was asked to track the absolute value of a
sinusoid of amplitude 0.7 and frequency 0.01 Hz over one time-period (i.e., the TARGET signal)
during a trial. The rectus femoris was maintained in an isometric condition by Biodex System3
(Biodex Medical Systems, USA) dynamometer as shown in Figure 2.1. The EMG was pre-
amplified and low-pass filtered (anti-aliasing, frequencycutoff=1000 Hz) by CED 1902
preamplifier (Cambridge Electronic Design, England) before being sampled at 2200 Hz by the
data-acquisition card (AT-MIO-64F-5, National Instruments, USA) in a personal computer (PC).
The data processing and graphical display (GUI) were performed using Matlab R13 (The
MathWorks, Inc., USA) in the same PC. The EMG sampled by the data-acquisition card was
band-pass filtered (5th order zero-lag Butterworth, 20-500 Hz), de-trended and rectified before
being evaluated as a command signal (i.e., the TRACKING signal). The average EMG during
two seconds of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) was used for normalization.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
24/164
24
The average magnitude of the EMG over two seconds while the subject was asked to relax the
muscle provided an estimate of the baseline activity. During visual pursuit, the estimated
baseline was subtracted from the EMG and then it was normalized by the MVC. The normalized
EMG was then divided into bins, each holding 0.1 sec of data. The TRACKING signal (i.e., the
processed EMG) pursuing the TARGET signal was updated every 0.1 sec with the average value
of the data in the latest bin only if the mean was greater by twice the standard deviation, or less
by one standard deviation, of the data in the preceding bin.
Both TARGET and TRACKING signals were projected on the wall in front of the subject
seated in the dynamometer. A set of five trials with a minimum 5 minutes of rest in between the
trials were conducted on the left and right rectus femoris of the subjects with iSCI. A set of five
trials were conducted only on the right rectus femoris of the right-handed able-bodied subjects.
The absolute value of the difference between the TARGET and TRACKING signals, the
tracking error signal ( ERROR signal = TRACKING signal - TARGET signal ), was ensemble averaged
over the set of five trials. The trial period of 100 sec was divided into four parts of 25 sec each.
The first (0-25 sec) and the third (50-75 sec) parts were the periods during which the subject was
trying to contract the muscle to catch-up with the TARGET signal. The second (25-50 sec) and
the fourth parts (75-100 sec) were the periods when the subject was trying to relax the muscle.
The mean of the absolute tracking error was computed for each of these four parts for
comparison.
Test of Discriminability
Discriminability was defined as the ability to detect the intent to step using the surface
EMG during the double-support phase of gait when both the feet are in contact with the ground.
Surface EMG signals were collected from gluteus medius (GM), biceps femoris (BF), medial
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
25/164
25
gastrocnemius (MG), rectus femoris (RF), tibialis anterior (TA), and erector spinae (ES at T9)
bilaterally. In case of iSCI subjects, the surface EMG was collected during switch-triggered FES-
assisted gait when each step was initiated by depression of ring-mounted finger switch. The
experimental setup is shown in Figure 2.2 where subject is walking with an implanted switch-
triggered FES-system based on an IRS-8 implanted pulse generator under the control of an
external control unit (ECU). Surface EMG was collected using Ag/AgCl electrodes with 2 cm.
inter-electrode distance following the SENIAM guidelines [2.18]. The EMG signals were
amplified and low-pass filtered (anti-aliasing, frequencycutoff=1000 Hz) by CED 1902 amplifiers
(Cambridge Electronic Design, England) before being sampled at 2400 Hz (AT-MIO-64F-5,
National Instruments, USA) in the host personal computer (PC). The CED 1902 amplifier has a
switching circuit (clamp) which was activated by a trigger pulse that disconnected the electrode
inputs from the amplifier and connected them to the common electrode just before the start of the
stimulation pulse. The input channels of CED 1902 were clamped this way when stimulation
pulses were applied to the muscles to prevent stimulation artifact. The gain of each channel was
set separately in the CED 1902 amplifiers to prevent saturation at the maximum muscle activity
during the gait-cycle. The implanted FES system (i.e., IRS-8) delivered electrical pulses at a
frequency of 20 Hz, so the sampled EMG was divided into bins of 50ms duration. In each bin,
30ms following the start of the stimulation pulse was blanked to remove the residual stimulation
artifact and M-wave, thus leaving signal related to voluntary muscle activity. The remaining 20
ms of data in each bin was detrended, band-pass filtered (5th order zero-lag Butterworth, 20-500
Hz), and rectified. The blanked portion of the EMG was reconstructed with the average value of
the EMG in the preceding and succeeding blocks [2.19]. Then the whole EMG pattern was low
pass filtered (5th
order zero-lag Butterworth, frequencycutoff=3 Hz) to get the linear envelope. The
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
26/164
26
EMG pattern for each muscle was normalized by the maximum value of the EMG linear
envelope (LE) during a gait cycle. The normalized LEs during a gait cycle were then divided into
double-support and swing phase of gait based on the occurrence of foot-strike and foot-off. The
foot and ground contact sequences were determined from the insole foot switches (B&L
Engineering, USA) placed bilaterally at the medial and lateral heel, first and fifth metatarsal, and
big toe. The intent to step can be detected based on the magnitude of the LE when it crosses a
selected threshold (threshold-based) or by matching the LE pattern with a specified pattern of
muscle activity using cross-correlation analysis (pattern-recognition).
The subjects were asked to start walking after standing for 3 sec and reach a self-selected
speed within 5m from the start position. After reaching the self-selected speed the subjects had to
decelerate and return to standing. The experimental protocol is shown in Figure 2.3. The subjects
were asked to wait in terminal stance for 3 sec. The normalized LEs of each muscle were divided
into two classes: the class True was comprised of LEs (~ 150) during double-support phase
prior to foot-off and the class False consisted of the LEs (~150) during terminal stance and
initial standing. Half of the data were randomly allocated to training and used to find a
characteristic pattern of activation by ensemble averaging the LEs. The characteristic pattern
found for the class True was cross-correlated with the LEs from the other half of the data (test
data) for the classes True and False. A Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve
shows the tradeoff between sensitivity (True Positive Rate) and 1 specificity (False Positive
Rate) of a binary classifier [2.20]. The ROC curve was computed from the cross-correlation
coefficient (i.e., PRC for the pattern-recognition classifier) and the amplitude (i.e., TC for the
threshold-based classifier) of the LEs as the decision threshold was varied over the range of data
in the two classes, True and False. The LEs from all the able-bodied subjects were pooled
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
27/164
27
together. In case of able-bodied data, the left and the right sides were considered similar and the
performance of the PRC and TC was evaluated only for the right side. The ipsilateral muscles are
the muscles of the right side and contralateral muscles are the muscles of the left side for the
classifiers (PRC and TC) trying to detect the intent to step on the right side.
Discriminability Index (DIPRC and DITC) was defined as the area under the ROC curve
(AUC) which gave a measure of performance for the binary classifiers, PRC and TC. Bradley
showed that AUC exhibits a number of desirable properties when compared to overall accuracy
of the classifiers like increased sensitivity in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests standard
error decreased as both AUC and the number of test samples increased. AUC is also decision
threshold independent and it is invariant to a priori class probabilities [2.21]. The area under the
ROC curve was numerically computed with trapezoidal integration. Figure 2.4 illustrates the
three cases, where 1,15.0,5.00 =
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
28/164
28
computed from an approximation of the Wilcoxon statistic (WPRC and WTC) which assumes
exponential distribution of the data in the classes, True and False. SE (W) has been shown to
be conservative as it overestimates the standard error [2.22]
)1(
2;
)2(
))(1())(1()1()(
2
21
2
2
2
1
W
WQ
W
WQ
CC
WQCWQCWWWSE
np
np
+=
=
++=
Where Cp and Cn are the number of data points in the classes, True and False
respectively.
Statistical Analysis
One-way two-tailed analysis of variance (anova1 in MatlabTM
R14, The MathWorks,
Inc., USA) was performed on the absolute tracking error that was obtained from the Test of
Controllability. All observations were considered to be mutually independent for the ANOVA
test. The p-value was computed for the null hypothesis that the absolute tracking error parameter
has the same mean for all the cases. If the p-value was close to zero (
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
29/164
29
was considered statistically significant. To find which pairs were significantly different, post hoc
tests were performed with the critical values found from Scheffes S procedure.
ANOVA is insensitive to departures from the assumption of equal variances when the
sample sizes are equal, as in our case. Moreover, prior work has shown that ANOVA is robust
to violations of its assumptions [2.23]
Results
Results from the Test of Controllability
The TRACKING signal (broken black line) using the surface EMG of rectus femoris and
the TARGET signal (solid black line) that was the absolute value of a 0.01 Hz sinusoid of
amplitude 0.7 during visual pursuit over 100 ms is shown in Figure 2.5 and 2.6. The top panel of
Figure 2.5 shows the results for the rectus femoris of the left and the right sides of iSCI-1 and the
bottom panel shows the same for iSCI-2. Figure 2.6 shows the results for surface EMG from
rectus femoris of the right side for the able-bodied subjects. The solid black line is the TARGET
signal and the broken black line shows the TRACKING signal that was ensemble averaged over
5 trials. The boxes at each data point show the lower quartile and upper quartile values of the
TRACKING signal. Whiskers extending at the top and bottom of the boxes show the range of
the TRACKING signal. Table 2.1 presents the mean, the minimum, and the maximum average
absolute tracking error during four parts (0-25 sec, 25-50 sec, 50-75 sec, 75-100 sec) of the trial.
The p-value from the one-way two-tailed ANOVA test for the average tracking error over the
whole trial (100 sec) was not statistically significant ( 0.01). This shows that all the subjects
(iSCI and able-bodied) performed similarly in the visual pursuit task for the Test of
Controllability. Individuals with iSCI were able to control the contraction of their muscles
equally well as able-bodied individuals.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
30/164
30
The average absolute tracking error was smallest (mean = 5.48) in the first part (0-25 sec)
of the trial period, for the subjects with iSCI, corresponding to the initial period of increasing
isometric contraction. There was a slight deterioration in the performance of the iSCI subjects in
the third part of the trial, corresponding to the second period of increasing contraction (50-75
sec, mean=7.96) when compared to the first part (0-25 sec, mean=5.48). The subjects with iSCI
performed worse in the second (25-50 sec, mean=9.11) and fourth (75-100 sec, mean=10.27)
parts of the trial period, which required relaxing the muscle in a controlled fashion.
Results from the Test of Discriminability
Table 2.2 shows the results from the Test of Discriminability for the muscles gluteus
medius (GM), biceps femoris (BF), medial gastrocnemius (MG), rectus femoris (RF), tibialis
anterior (TA), and erector spinae (ES at T9) for the able-bodied subjects. The Wilcoxon statistic
(W) was similar in magnitude to the corresponding Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the
Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI over 10 random partitions (i.e., 10-fold cross-validation) was
similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W). There were
statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well as
the classifier type. The results from the post hoc analysis are presented in Figure 2.7. The top
panel of Figure 2.7 shows that the Ipsilateral MG, Ipsilateral ES, Contralateral BF, Contralateral
GM, and Contralateral TA in black markers that have performed the best (mean DI=1) as a
command source in the Test of Discriminability. The bottom panel of Figure 2.7 shows that the
Pattern Recognition Classifier (mean DIPRC=0.7586) performed much better than the Threshold-
based Classifier (mean DITC=0.5016).
Table 2.3a and b show the results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-1 for the left
step and right step classifiers respectively. The Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude
to the corresponding value of the Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
31/164
31
(SD) of the DI was similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon
statistic (W). There were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to
the muscle type as well as the classifier type. The results from post hoc analysis are presented in
Figure 2.8. The top panel first column of Figure 2.8 shows that Left ES (mean DI=0.8705) in
black marker performed the best followed by Left MG (mean DI=0.7881) in gray marker in the
Test of Discriminability for the left step. The bottom panel first column of Figure 2.8 shows that
Pattern Recognition Classifier (mean DIPRC=0.6486) in black marker performed slightly better
than the Threshold-based Classifier (mean DITC=0.6071) in gray marker in the Test of
Discriminability for the left step. The top panel second column of Figure 2.8 shows that Right ES
(mean DI=0.8299) performed the best followed by Right MG (mean DI=0.7989) in the Test of
Discriminability for the right step. The bottom panel first column of Figure 2.8 shows that
Pattern Recognition Classifier (mean DIPRC=0.6559) in black marker performed slightly better
than the Threshold-based Classifier (mean DITC=0.5886) in gray marker in the Test of
Discriminability for the right step.
Table 2.4a and b show the results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-2 for the left
step and right step classifiers respectively. The Wilcoxon statistic (W) and the corresponding
value of the Discriminability Index (DI) were similar. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI
and the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W) were similar. There were
statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well as
the classifier type. The results from post hoc analysis are presented in Figure 2.9. The top panel
first column of Figure 2.9 shows that Left ES (mean DI=0.9293) in black marker performed the
best followed by Left MG (mean DI=0.8736) and Right RF (mean DI=0.8536 in the Test of
Discriminability for the left step. The bottom panel first column of Figure 2.9 shows that Pattern
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
32/164
32
Recognition Classifier (mean DIPRC=0.71856) in black marker performed much better than the
Threshold-based Classifier (mean DITC=0.45457) in gray marker in the Test of Discriminability
for the left step. The top panel second column of Figure 2.9 shows that Right MG (mean
DI=0.8805) performed the best followed by Right ES (mean DI=0.853) and Left RF (mean
DI=0.8484) in the Test of Discriminability for the right step. The bottom panel first column of
Figure 2.9 shows that Pattern Recognition Classifier (mean DIPRC=0.6853) in black marker
performed slightly better than the Threshold-based Classifier (mean DITC=0.54613) in black
marker in the Test of Discriminability for the right step.
Discussion
The controllability of the surface EMG from partially paralyzed rectus femoris of subjects
with incomplete SCI was evaluated in a visual pursuit task and found to have performance
similar (p
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
33/164
33
for classification in the Test of Discriminability, where the muscles which had 15.0
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
34/164
34
implanted stimulator-telemeter that acquire and transmit EMG information from implanted EMG
electrodes. The new family of implantable stimulator-telemeter (IST-12) has only 2 implanted
EMG channels and the capability to perform the signal processing required by the classifier
[2.6]. Partially paralyzed muscles showed controllability similar (p
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
35/164
35
2.8. A. Mansfield, and G. M. Lyons, The use of accelerometry to detect heel contact events foruse as a sensor in FES assisted walking, Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 25, no. 10, Dec. 2003, pp.879-885.
2.9. T. Sinkjaer, M. Haugland, A. Inman, M. Hansen, and K. D. Nielsen, Biopotentials ascommand and feedback signals in functional electrical stimulation systems, Med. Eng.Phys., vol 25, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 29-40.
2.10.R. T. Lauer, R. T. Smith, and R. R. Betz, Application of a neuro-fuzzy network for gaitevent detection using electromyography in the child with cerebral palsy, IEEE Trans.
Rehabil. Eng., vol. 52, no. 9, Sep. 2005, pp. 15321540.
2.11.D. Graupe, and H. Kordylewski, Artificial neural network control of FES in paraplegicsfor patient responsive ambulation, IEEE Trans. Biomed Eng., vol. 42, no. 7, Jul. 1995, pp.
699-707.
2.12.H. Kordylewski, and D. Graupe, Control of Neuromuscular Stimulation for Ambulationby Complete Paraplegics via Artificial Neural Networks, Neurol. Research, vol. 23, July
2001, pp.472-481.
2.13.R. Thorsen, R. Spadone, and M. Ferrarin, A pilot study of myoelectrically controlled FESof upper extremity, IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, June 2001, pp. 161167.
2.14.R.Futami, K.Seki, T.Kawanishi, T.Sugiyama, I.Cikajlo, and Y.Handa, Application of localEMG-driven FES to incompletely paralyzed lower extremities, presented at 10th Annual
Conference of the International FES Society, Montreal, Canada, July 2005.
2.15.E. Hardin, R. Kobetic, L. Murray, M. Corado-Ahmed, G. Pinnault, J. Sakai, S. Nogan, C.Ho, and R. Triolo, Ambulation after incomplete spinal cord injury with an implanted FESsystem: a case report, Jour. Rehab R&D, 44:3, 2007, pp. 333-346.
2.16.R. Kobetic, and E.B. Marsolais, Synthesis of paraplegic gait with multichannel functionalneuromuscular stimulation, IEEE Trans Rehab Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, 1994, pp. 66-79.
2.17.R. Kobetic, R. J. Triolo, and E. B. Marsolais, Muscle selection and walking performanceof multichannel FES systems for ambulation in paraplegia, IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng.,vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 1997, pp. 2329.
2.18.H. J. Hermens, B. Freriks, R. Merletti, D. Stegeman, J. Blok, G. Rau, C. Disselhorst-Klug,and G. Hagg, SENIAM 8 European Recommendations for Surface ElectroMyoGraphy.
Enschede, Netherlands: Roessingh Research and Development, 1999.
2.19.A. E. Hines, P. E. Crago, G. J. Chapman, and C. Billian, Stimulus artifact removal inEMG from muscles adjacent to stimulated muscles, J. Neurosci. Methods, vol. 64, no. 1,
Jan. 1996, pp. 55-62.
2.20.T. D. Dickens, Elementary Signal Detection Theory. US: Oxford University Press, 2001,pp. 66, 121.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
36/164
36
2.21.A. P. Bradley, "The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machinelearning algorithms,"Pattern Recognition, vol. 30, no. 7, 1997, pp. 1145-1159.
2.22.J. A. Hanley and B. J. McNeil, "The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operatingcharacteristic (ROC) curve," Radiology, vol. 143, 1982, pp. 29-36.
2.23.R. E. Walpole and R. H. Myers, Probability and Statistic for Engineers and Scientists.Macmillan, New York, 1990
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
37/164
37
Figures
Figure 2.1: Experimental setup for the Test of Controllability of the surface EMG from Rectus
Femoris using visual pursuit tasks while the knee is fixed in a dynamometer.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
38/164
38
Figure 2.2: Experimental setup for surface EMG data collection with switch-triggered FES-
assisted overground walking.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
39/164
39
Figure 2.3: Experimental protocol for surface EMG data collection during overground walking,
where the subject had to start from standing and achieve a self-selected gait speed
within 5m.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
40/164
40
Figure 2.4: The left column shows the cumulative distribution function for the three cases,
1,15.0,5.00 =
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
41/164
41
Figure 2.5: TRACKING (broken black line) and TARGET (solid black line) signals duringvisual pursuit task for the Test of Controllability. The boxes at each data point showthe lower quartile and upper quartile values of the TRACKING signal. Whiskers
extending at the top and bottom of the boxes show the range of the TRACKING
signal. The top panel presents the results for iSCI-1 and the bottom panel for iSCI-2.
The left panel presents the results for the left Rectus Femoris and the right panel
presents the results for the right Rectus Femoris.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
42/164
42
Figure 2.6: TRACKING (broken black line) and TARGET (solid black line) signals duringvisual pursuit task for the Test of Controllability with able-bodied subjects. The boxes
at each data point show the lower quartile and upper quartile values of theTRACKING signal. Whiskers extending at the top and bottom of the boxes show the
range of the TRACKING signal.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
43/164
43
Figure 2.7: Top panel shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index
with their critical values from Scheffes S procedure for the muscles Gluteus
Medius (GM), Biceps Femoris (BF), Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Rectus Femoris
(RF), Tibialis Anterior (TA), and Erector Spinae (ES at T9) obtained from the Test ofDiscriminability with able-bodied subjects. The bottom panel shows the results from
the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index with their critical values fromScheffes S procedure for different classifiers Pattern Recognition Classifier (PRC)
and Threshold-based Classifier (TC) obtained from the Test of Discriminability withable-bodied subjects.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
44/164
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
45/164
45
Figure 2.9: Top panel shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index
with their critical values from Scheffes S procedure for the muscles Gluteus
Medius (GM), Biceps Femoris (BF), Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Rectus Femoris
(RF), Tibialis Anterior (TA), and Erector Spinae (ES at T9) obtained from the Test of
Discriminability of the left and right step classifiers of iSCI-2. The bottom panel
shows the results from the post hoc analysis of the Discriminability Index with their
critical values from Scheffes S procedure for different classifiers Pattern
Recognition Classifier (PRC) and Threshold-based Classifier (TC) obtained from theTest of Discriminability of the left and the right step classifiers of iSCI-2.
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
46/164
46
Tables
Table 2.1: The mean, the minimum, and the maximum average absolute tracking error in %MVC
during the four parts (0-25 sec, 25-50 sec, 50-75 sec, 75-100 sec) of the Test forControllability. The p-value from the one-way two-tailed ANOVA test for the
average tracking error over the whole trial (100 sec) was not statistically significant( 0.01).
%MVCPart 1
(0-25 sec)Part 2
(25-50 sec)Part 3
(50-75 sec)Part 4
(75-100 sec)
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
iSCI-1 Left RF 5.34 0.01 11.6 10.68 1.24 25.8 8.98 0.16 21.39 16.05 1.02 26.97iSCI-1 Right
RF 6.57 0.57 15.02 9.4 1.44 20.61 8.49 0.44 20.97 9.58 0.59 21.04iSCI-2 Left RF 7.18 0.45 16.42 9.84 0.14 32.31 9.75 0.33 33.1 9.23 0.28 26.18iSCI-2 RightRF 2.81 0.02 5.77 6.52 0.34 16.9 4.63 0.05 9.4 6.23 0.66 15.55Able-1 RightRF 4.05 0.29 9.5 2.42 0.02 7.86 3.29 0.42 10.92 3.26 0.02 10.77Able-2 RightRF 8.98 5.28 13.19 4.99 0.09 14.49 7.75 0.07 23.11 13.19 0.06 26.8Able-3 RightRF 4.79 0.11 9.49 5.11 0.02 13.63 3.51 0.18 10.37 2.46 0.02 8.11Able-4 RightRF 12.89 4.56 18.71 6.66 0.32 15.76 5.93 0.2 13.71 6.66 0.81 11.72
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
47/164
47
Table 2.2: The results from the Test of Discriminability for the muscles Gluteus Medius (GM),
Biceps Femoris (BF), Medial Gastrocnemius (MG), Rectus Femoris (RF), TibialisAnterior (TA), and Erector Spinae (ES at T9) are presented for the able-bodied
subjects. The Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the correspondingDiscriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI over 10
random partitions (i.e., 10-fold cross-validation) was similar in magnitude to the
Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W). There were statistically
significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well as
the classifier type.
Muscles for right stepclassifier for able-bodiedsubjects
DIPRCSD
(DIPRC)WPRC
SE(WPRC)
DITCSD
(DITC)WTC
SE(WTC)
Ipsilateral GM 0.42 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0Ipsilateral BF 0.29 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0
Ipsilateral MG 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Ipsilateral RF 0.74 0.01 0.75 0.01 0.59 0.05 0.59 0.05
Ipsilateral TA 0.52 0 0.54 0 0 0 0 0
Ipsilateral ES 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Contralateral GM 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Contralateral BF 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Contralateral MG 0.26 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0
Contralateral RF 1 0 1 0 0.42 0.04 0.42 0.04
Contralateral TA 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Contralateral ES 0.49 0.02 0.49 0.01 0 0 0 0
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
48/164
48
Table 2.3a: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-1 for the left step classifier. The
Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the corresponding value of theDiscriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI was
similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W).There were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to
the muscle type as well as the classifier type.Muscles for left stepclassifier of iSCI-1 DIPRC
SD(DIPRC) WPRC
SE(WPRC) DITC
SD(DITC) WTC
SE(WTC)
Left GM 0.77 0.06 0.78 0.06 0.66 0.06 0.67 0.06
Left BF 0.56 0.03 0.56 0.03 0.57 0.05 0.58 0.05
Left MG 0.81 0.02 0.81 0.02 0.77 0.06 0.77 0.06
Left RF 0.72 0.04 0.73 0.04 0.57 0.05 0.57 0.05
Left TA 0.63 0.08 0.64 0.08 0.58 0.06 0.58 0.06
Left ES 0.96 0.04 0.96 0.038 0.78 0.06 0.79 0.06
Right GM 0.5 0.04 0.5 0.039 0.53 0.03 0.55 0.03Right BF 0.56 0.04 0.57 0.036 0.56 0.05 0.56 0.05
Right MG 0.58 0.04 0.59 0.039 0.56 0.06 0.56 0.06
Right RF 0.65 0.08 0.67 0.075 0.53 0.06 0.54 0.05
Right TA 0.56 0.05 0.56 0.045 0.55 0.06 0.56 0.06
Right ES 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.057 0.60 0.05 0.61 0.05
Table 2.3b: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-1 for the right step. The
Wilcoxon statistic (W) was similar in magnitude to the corresponding value of the
Discriminability Index (DI). Similarly the Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI was
similar in magnitude to the Standard Error (SE) found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W).
There were statistically significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due tothe muscle type as well as the classifier type.
Muscles for right stepclassifier of iSCI-1 DIPRC
SD(DIPRC) WPRC
SE(WPRC) DITC
SD(DITC) WTC
SE(WTC)
Left GM 0.48 0.07 0.49 0.07 0.57 0.06 0.57 0.059
Left BF 0.55 0.07 0.56 0.07 0.58 0.04 0.59 0.04
Left MG 0.68 0.06 0.68 0.06 0.59 0.04 0.6 0.04
Left RF 0.66 0.05 0.67 0.05 0.55 0.05 0.55 0.05
Left TA 0.53 0.05 0.53 0.05 0.56 0.07 0.57 0.07
Left ES 0.57 0.05 0.57 0.05 0.55 0.05 0.56 0.04
Right GM 0.77 0.04 0.78 0.04 0.53 0.03 0.53 0.03
Right BF 0.52 0.04 0.53 0.04 0.52 0.06 0.53 0.06
Right MG 0.85 0.05 0.86 0.05 0.75 0.05 0.75 0.05
Right RF 0.69 0.05 0.7 0.05 0.53 0.05 0.54 0.05
Right TA 0.68 0.04 0.68 0.04 0.56 0.05 0.57 0.06
Right ES 0.89 0.06 0.89 0.06 0.77 0.04 0.77 0.05
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
49/164
49
Table 2.4a: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-2 for the left step. The
Wilcoxon statistic (W) and the corresponding value of the Discriminability Index(DI) were similar. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI and the Standard Error (SE)
found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W) were similar. There were statistically
significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well as
the classifier type.
Muscles for left stepclassifier of iSCi-2 DIPRC
SD(DIPRC) WPRC
SE(WTC) DITC
SD(DITC) WTC
SE(WTC)
Left GM 0.49 0.07 0.49 0.062 0 0 0 0
Left BF 0.47 0.026 0.47 0.026 0 0 0 0
Left MG 0.99 0 0.99 0 0.743 0.06 0.74 0.06
Left RF 0.46 0.041 0.46 0.04 0.68 0.028 0.68 0.024Left TA 0.47 0.0042 0.48 0.004 0 0 0 0
Left ES 0.99 0 0.99 0 0.87 0.034 0.87 0.04
Right GM 0.83 0.002 0.83 0.002 0.71 0.027 0.70 0.027
Right BF 0.87 0.003 0.89 0.003 0.6 0.02 0.59 0.02
Right MG 0.83 0.008 0.84 0.008 0.69 0.022 0.69 0.02
Right RF 0.99 0 0.99 0 0.71 0.02 0.70 0.01
Right TA 0.82 0.013 0.82 0.012 0.48 0.02 0.48 0.02
Right ES 0.41 0.075 0.41 0.075 0 0 0 0
Table 2.4 b: The results from the Test of Discriminability of iSCI-2 for the right step classifier.The Wilcoxon statistic (W) and the corresponding value of the Discriminability Index
(DI) were similar. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the DI and the Standard Error (SE)found for the Wilcoxon statistic (W) were similar. There were statistically
significant (p 0.05) differences in the means of DI due to the muscle type as well as
the classifier type.
Muscles for right stepclassifier of iSCI-2 DIPRC
SD(DIPRC) WPRC
SE(WPRC) DITC
SD(DITC) WTC
SE(WTC)
Left GM 0.74 0.003 0.74 0.003 0.69 0.017 0.698 0.017
Left BF 0.88 0.012 0.87 0.012 0.59 0.029 0.598 0.028
Left MG 0.68 0.007 0.69 0.007 0.66 0.016 0.67 0.016
Left RF 0.99 0.003 0.99 0.003 0.69 0.020 0.698 0.02
Left TA 0.68 0.019 0.69 0.016 0.7 0.019 0.699 0.016
Left ES 0.49 0.014 0.51 0.014 0.57 0.018 0.57 0.017
Right GM 0.40 0.017 0.47 0.015 0 0 0 0
Right BF 0.37 0.018 0.37 0.018 0 0 0 0
Right MG 0.99 0 0.99 0.001 0.75 0.056 0.75 0.055
Right RF 0.59 0.007 0.61 0.006 0.56 0.037 0.57 0.037
Right TA 0.41 0.019 0.41 0.017 0.58 0.019 0.59 0.017
Right ES 0.99 0.001 0.99 0.001 0.71 0.045 0.71 0.46
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
50/164
50
CHAPTER 3
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF SURFACE EMG-TRIGGERED FES-ASSISTEDAMBULATION AFTER INCOMPLETE SPINAL CORD INJURY
A part of this chapter was published in IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008 Feb; 55(2).
Abstract
Ambulation after spinal cord injury is possible with the aid of functional electrical
stimulation (FES). Individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) retain partial volitional
control of muscles below the level of injury, necessitating careful integration of FES with intact
voluntary motor function for efficient walking. In this study, the surface electromyogram (EMG)
of the volitionally controlled erector spinae was used to detect the intent to step and trigger FES-
assisted walking in a volunteer with iSCI via an 8-channel implanted stimulation system. The
classifier was able to trigger the FES-assisted swing-phase of gait with a false positive rate less
than 1% and true positive rate greater than 82% during over-ground ambulation on a level
surface. The performance of the EMG classifier highlights its potential as a natural command
interface to better coordinate stimulated and volitional muscle activities than conventional
manual switches and facilitate FES-assisted community ambulation.
Introduction
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) provides an opportunity for brace-free ambulation
to wheelchair dependent individuals with incomplete spinal cord injuries (iSCI). The implanted
FES systems can electrically activate a customized set of muscles selected to address individual
gait deficits with pre-programmed patterns of stimulation to produce cyclic movement of the
lower extremities for ambulation. Our 8-channel implantable receiver-stimulator (IRS-8) delivers
stimulation via implanted electrodes to the targeted motor nerves activating the muscles required
to produce stepping motions [3.1]. Power and stimulus control information are transmitted to the
implanted receiver stimulator through the skin via an inductive link by a wearable external
8/8/2019 ADUTTA Dissertation
51/164
51
control unit (ECU). Implant recipients normally use a ring-mounted thumb switch connected to
the ECU to manually trigger each step and progress through the customized pattern of
stimulation to achieve walking function. This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential for
better coordinating the actions of the stimulator with remaining volitional movements through a
more natural command interface than the manual switch.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of detecting the intent to take a
step using the surface electromyogram (EMG) in an implant recipient with iSCI and eliminate
the need for manual triggering during FES-assisted ambulation. Our long-term goal is to specify
a new command and control interface that can be implemented with two channels of implanted
EMG recording electrodes with