Electromyographic Signal Decomposition: Which Motor Unit Potential Features?

shiraz university of medical sciences
school of medicine
Electromyographic Signal Decomposition:
Which Motor Unit Potential Features?
By
Mohsen Ghofrani Jahromi
a thesis submitted to the school of

medicine in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of master of
science in biomedical engineering
Supervisors:
Hossein Parsaei, PhD.
Ali Zamani, PhD.
October 2015
You are the light which told Moses‫تو آن نوری هک با موسی همیگفت‬
‫ی‬ ‫ی‬
“I am God I am God I am God I am.” ‫خدا م من خدا م من خدا م‬
‫ی‬
RUMI
Ghazal 1526
In The Name of God
Electromyographic Signal Decomposition:

Which Motor Unit Potential Features?
By
Mohsen Ghofrani Jahromi
a thesis submitted to the school of

medicine in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of master of
science in biomedical engineering
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Evaluated and Approved by

Hossein Parsaei, Assistant Professor at department of Medical Physics and
Biomedical Engineering
Ali Zamani, Assistant Professor at department of Medical Physics and
Biomedical Engineering
Asadollah Zarifkar, Professor at department of Physiology
October 2015
Abstract
Electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition is the process by which an

EMG signal is decomposed into its constituent motor unit potential trains
(MUPTs). A major step in EMG decomposition is feature extraction in which
each detected motor unit potential (MUP) is represented by several features
called feature vector. As with any other pattern recognition system, feature
extraction plays an important role in the overall performance (accuracy and
speed) of the decomposition. The lack of a comprehensive research on the
feature extraction part of needle EMG signal decomposition has encouraged
us to put our effort into this research problem.
Several EMG signals were simulated using a physiologically based EMG
signal simulation algorithm. The firing patterns of the MU discharge provided
by the EMG signal simulator were used as reference and were employed to
extract MUPs of each MU that contributed significantly in each simulated
EMG signal. For feature extraction, time-domain, morphological, frequency-
domain features, and discrete wavelet coefficients of MUPs were calculated.
Using three techniques, the features were evaluated regarding their capability
in distinguishing between different motor unit potential trains (MUPTs).
The best results were found to be achieved at the 4th detail coefficient of
discrete wavelets. The mother wavelets db2, coif1, sym5, bior2.2, bior4.4, and
rbior2.2 were seen to be the most capable in distinguishing between MUPs of
different MUs. Applying PCA on coefficients enhanced the results.
Keywords: EMG signal decomposition, feature extraction, cluster separabil-
ity measurement, mutual information, decomposability index.
i
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Overview of this Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Background 4
2.1 Skeletal Muscle and Electromyographic Signal . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Electromyography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Quantitative Electromyography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 EMG Signal Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1 Signal Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.2 Preprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3 MUP detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.4 Feature Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.5 Clustering and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.6 Resolution of superimposed MUPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.7 Evaluation of an EMG decompostion algorithm . . . . . 16
3 Literature Review 20
3.1 Time Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Morphological Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ii
CONTENTS iii
3.3 Frequency Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.4 Wavelet Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Materials and Methods 27

4.1 Separability Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.1 Decomposability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.2 Accuracy-based Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.3 Information-based Evaulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Time domain Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1 Raw time samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.2 First and second order difference of time samples . . . . 30
4.4 Frequency Domain Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4.1 Discrete Fourier Transform Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4.2 Power Spectral Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.5 Wavelet Domain Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.6 Principal Components of features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.7 Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Reuslts 42
6 Discussion 55
Bibliography 61
List of Figures
1.1 EMG signals, innervation patterns, and MUPs of healthy, neu-

ropathic, and myopathic cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1 Voluntary Contraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Components of a Motor Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Anatomical and physiological model of an EMG signal . . . . . 7
2.4 Intramuscular EMG signal decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 The main steps of an EMG decomposition system along with
the objective of each step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Muscle fibers innervation, distribution, and action potentials . . 11
2.7 Segmentation of the signal into its MUPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 An EMG signal and its decomposition results . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9 Superimposed MUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.10 VBEMGD results: shimmer, templates, IDI histogram and fir-
ing pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.11 Output of an EMG decomposition system . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1 Raw time samples of a MUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1 Conditional probability density function estimation . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Time domain features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 A MUP before and after low-pass filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4 Morphological features: Maximum positive and negative slopes. 31
4.5 Morphological features: Under-curve area. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
4.6 Morphological features: Peak analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.7 Morphological features: Zero crossings, peaks and valleys . . . . 33
4.8 Wavelet decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.9 Normalized cumulative variance of principal components . . . . 36
4.10 Enhanced data separation via principal components analysis . . 37
4.11 Main panel of the designed program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1 Ttime domain features, Decomposability Index . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.2 Time domain features, Predictive accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.3 Morphological features, Mutual information analysis . . . . . . . 46
5.4 Morphological features, Decomposability Index . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.5 Morphological features, Predictive accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.6 Frequency domain features, Decomposability Index . . . . . . . 49
5.7 Wavelet coefficients, Decomposability Index . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.8 Applying PCA on wavelet coefficients, Decomposability Index . 51
6.1 Comparing selected wavelet functions and time samples . . . . . 57

6.2 Increasing the number of levels in wavelet decomposition . . . . 58
6.3 VBEMGD and DQEMG accuracies vs Decomposability Index . 59
6.4 Principal component of wavelet coefficents . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
List of Tables
3.1 Summary of EMG decomposition algorithms regarding the fea-

tures being used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1 Wavelet decomposition filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2 Real data used in the experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1 Decomposability Index and predictive accuracy, Time domain

features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2 Decomposability Index, Time features from real data . . . . . . 52
5.3 Decomposability Index, Morphological features from real data . 52
5.4 Decomposability Index, Different wavelet functions . . . . . . . 53
vi
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Preface
Electromyography (EMG) is a technique used for diagnosing neuromuscular
diseases in which the electrical activities of a muscle during contraction is
examined. Information regarding the morphology of motor unit potentials
(MUPs) and motor unit firing patterns can be used to help diagnose, treat, and
manage neuromuscular disorders. Figure 1.1 briefly describes how healthy and
diseased cases can be distinguished by inspecting the corresponding EMG and
MUPs. In a conventional electromyographic examination, a clinician manually
Figure 1.1: EMG signals, innervation patterns, and MUPs of healthy, neuro-
pathic, and myopathic cases [1]
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
assesses the characteristics of needle-detected EMG signals across a number

of distinct needle positions and forms an overall impression of the condition
of the muscle. Such a subjective assessment is highly dependent on the skills
and level of experience of the clinician, and is prone to a high error rate and
operator bias. However, quantitative methods (QEMG) have been developed
to characterize MUP waveforms using statistical and probabilistic techniques
that allow for greater objectivity and reproducibility in supporting the diag-
nostic process.
A key step in QEMG is EMG decomposition, resolving an EMG signal into
its constituent motor unit potential trains (MUPTs). Several decomposition
systems and algorithms have been developed through time. The main focuses
of researchers have been on developing robust and fast algorithms for sort-
ing extracted MUPs into MUPTs using clustering and classification methods.
However, in a pattern recognition system, the features used for representing
examples and patters play an important role in the overall accuracy of the
clustering or classification results. Therefore, feature extraction as the early
part of an EMG decomposition system has a significant role on the precision
and speed of the whole system. The lack of a comprehensive research on the
feature extraction part of needle EMG signal decomposition has encouraged
us to put our effort into this research problem.
1.2 Objectives and Approach

EMG signal decomposition has been studied for many years. Various types
of electrodes (single channel or multichannel) and various signal processing,
clustering, and supervised classification techniques have been employed in the
hope of developing fully automated and robust procedures for EMG signal
decomposition. Each of these systems uses their own feature extraction, clas-
sification and clustering techniques. Performance of clustering and classifica-
tions algorithms in grouping MUPs have been studied and reported, but the
performance and discriminant power of the features have not been studied.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3
Consequently, a cross comparison of the feature extraction methods used in

EMG signal decomposition to assist researchers in using best features and ul-
timately improving EMG decomposition results is required. In this work, our
objective has been to address this issue.
1.3 Overview of this Thesis

This thesis explores different feature extraction methods that can be applied
in the problem of needle EMG decomposition to provide a guideline for re-
searchers in comparing and choosing the most convenient features regarding
their application. The following chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2
introduces the fundamentals of QEMG and describes the various steps of an
EMG decomposition system. Chapter 3 provides a review of the decomposi-
tion systems to date with the main focus on the features that has been used.
Chapter 4 explains the main four categories of MUP feature extraction tech-
niques and also defines three methods in order to evaluate a feature domain
regarding its discriminative power. Chapter 5 brings the results of evaluations
made on each feature.
Chapter 2
Background
This chapter deals with the basics of the subject. First, the constituent parts
of skeletal muscles and the compositions of an EMG signal are described.
Afterwards, EMG decomposition steps are explained. Finally, the outputs of
two EMG decomposition systems are brought.
2.1 Skeletal Muscle and Electromyographic Sig-

nal
To produce motion and force, our body is equipped with three different kinds
of muscles including skeletal, cardiac, and smooth. For a voluntary contraction
to be generated, a neural message from the spinal cord has to be transfered
by a motor neuron to one or more of skeletal muscle fibers (Figure 2.1). The
amount of force is controlled by the number of motor units which are recruited
and their discharge frequency i.e. firing pattern. The motor neuron, its axon,
and the muscle fibers innervated by the axon form a motor unit (MU) (Figure
2.2). When a motor unit is activated, it stimulates all of its fibers which leads
to contraction. Those muscles that require accurate control are composed of
less muscle fibers per motor unit. On the contrary, a motor unit with more
muscle fibers can generate more power.
Electrical potential fields of a muscle during a contraction can be moni-
4
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND 5
Figure 2.1: Voluntary Contraction [2]
tored using the electromyographic signal. The action potential traveling along
the muscle fiber membrane is called a muscle fiber potential (MFP). Coming
together spatially and temporally, the summation of the MFPs produced by
the fibers of a single MU is called a motor unit potential and is given by
n
X
M U Pj (t) = M F Pi (t − τi )si (2.1)
i=1
where n is the number of muscle fibers in the j th MU of a contracting muscle,

τi is the temporal delay of M F Pi (t) and si is a binary variable which is ”1” if
fiber i fires and is ”0” if it does not fire. The mechanism of force generation is
based on repetitive firing of MUPs during contraction. A motor unit potential
train is described as
M
X
M U P Tj = M U Pji (t − δji ) (2.2)
i=1
Figure 2.2: Components of a Motor Unit [3]
where M is the number of times that the j th MU fires, δji is the ith firing
time of M Uj and M U Pji (t) is the ith MUP generated by M Uj during its ith
firing. Finally, an EMG signal is the summation of the generated MUPTs
contaminated with noise:
N
X
EM G(t) = M U P Tj (t) + n(t) (2.3)
j=1
where N is the number of active MUs, M U P Tj (t) is the MUPT generated by

the j th MU, and n(t) is the background noise. Figure 2.3 shows how an EMG
signal is formed from its constituents.
Figure 2.3: Anatomical and physiological model of an EMG signal [4]
2.2 Electromyography
EMG signals are used in a large variety of applications such as human-machine
interfaces, research studies in neuromuscular system, ergonomics, movement
and gait analysis, sports engineering, biofeedback, rehabilitation, and pros-
thetics [2, 5]. For the cases of clinical requirements, neuromuscular disorders
could be diagnosed by observation of different characteristics of an intramus-
cular EMG signal. Indwelling electrodes are usually used for such applications
[6, 7].
A defect in the neuromuscular system leads to an alteration in the distribu-
tion of the fibers of the muscle. Hence, information regarding the morphology
of the MUPs and motor unit firing patterns can be used to help diagnose,
treat, and manage neuromuscular disorders. In patients with myopathy, the
main disease process is the loss of muscle fibers, thereby affecting the myogenic
portion of the MU. Neurogenic diseases, however, primarily affect the neuro-
genic portion of the MU resulting in the loss of that MU. This can occur due
to loss of the motor neuron or axon [8]. Figure 1.1 shows how neuromuscu-
lar disorders exhibit themselves in EMG signals, alter the innervations of the
muscle fibers, and the corresponding MUPs.
2.3 Quantitative Electromyography

The strategies by which EMG signals are utilized in clinical environment can
be categorized broadly into qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative
assessment of EMG signals is achieved by seeing or hearing the signal and
is highly subjective and dependent on the experience of the electrodiagnostic
physician [9]. In a conventional electromyographic (EMG) examination, a
clinician manually assesses the characteristics of needle-detected EMG signals
across a number of distinct needle positions and forms an overall impression
of the condition of the muscle. Such assessment is highly dependent on the
skills and level of experience of the clinician, and is prone to a high error
rate and operator bias. Kendall et al. arranged an investigation to observe
the similarity between qualitative characterization and the gold standard in
an electro-diagnostic examination. The examiners were reported to have an
agreement average of not more than 46.9 % with the gold standard [10].
Quantitative EMG (QEMG) techniques, in contrast, are automated or
semi-automated approaches provided by the developments in the area of signal
processing, artificial intelligence, and pattern recognition [8, 11, 12, 9]. QEMG
techniques are not considered as alternatives to the experts knowledge; how-
ever, they can provide the physician with decision support and a measure of
confidence. Reproducibility of QEMG systems makes it possible to perform a
desired algorithm repeatedly on different patients. Moreover, these approaches
may include an analytic measure of confidence along with their results, showing
how certain the system is about a decision it has provided. The final decision
of a clinician is based on his or her own expertise and also the results and the
corresponding certainty values offered by the system. Quantitative analysis
Figure 2.4: Intramuscular EMG signal decomposition [15]
of a needle EMG includes two major parts: EMG signal decomposition and
classification of MUPs [13, 14]. A comprehensive review of QEMG is given in
[9].
2.4 EMG Signal Decomposition

EMG signal decomposition is the procedure of partitioning a raw EMG signal
into its constituent MUPTs. In other words, it is the “inverse problem” starting
from Equation 2.3 and getting to Equation 2.1 (Figure 2.4).
The main steps of the whole process include:
1. signal acquisition
2. preprocessing including band-pass filtering and thresholding
3. segmentation (MUP detection) by using a sliding window which detects

the peaks of a candidate MUP waveform.
4. feature extraction
5. clustering (unsupervised classification)

Figure 2.5: The main steps of an EMG decomposition system along with the
objective of each step [16]
6. supervised classification
7. and resolution of superimposed MUPs [16].
Figure 2.5 demonstrates a short description for the objective of each step.
2.4.1 Signal Acquisition
EMG signals can be acquired using a surface or needle electrode. Needle EMG
techniques can detect MUPs in a small volume near the needle tip and provide
efficiently localized information concerning either superficial or deep muscle
structures. The drawback of using such electrodes is the discomfort caused to
Figure 2.6: Muscle fibers innervation (a). Muscle fibers distribution and an
inserted monopolar needle electrode (b). Individual muscle fiber action poten-
tials (c). A single MUP (d). [8]
patients or test subjects. Surface techniques, in contrast, can detect MUPs in

a large volume and provide global information that is dominated by the most
superficial motor units. Due to the blurring effect of the tissues between fibers
and electrodes, interpretation of surface EMG is much more challenging than
needle EMG. However, the noninvasiveness of surface electrodes makes them
more applicable [2, 5]. Figure 2.6 shows how a needle electrode is capable of
acquiring the superposition of the potentials of fibers i.e. a MUP.
2.4.2 Preprocessing
Obviously, the background noise contaminating the acquired signal has to be

optimally removed in a filtering process. A band-pass filter with perfectly
chosen cut-off frequencies can remove low-frequency baseline drifts and also
high-frequency noise. In addition to the improvement made on the signal to
noise ratio (SNR), an efficient filtering technique can emphasize the contrast
between the MUPs of different MUs. This can make the clustering task easier
[17, 18].
2.4.3 MUP detection
The task of MUP segmentation has to be done without any prior knowledge
about the number of existing MUPTs or the shape of MUP templates. Figure
2.7 shows an example of a simple MUP detection technique. The idea behind
segmentation is to find positive or negative peaks of the signal and use a sliding
window with a fixed or adaptive length and applying a thresholding method
to find and extract the MUPs. The threshold can also be chosen manually
or adaptively. An option might be the root mean square (RMS) value of the
signal multiplied by a constant [13, 19, 20, 21, 22].
EMG
peaks
window
segemented MUPs
threshold
Figure 2.7: Segmentation of the signal into its MUPs
2.4.4 Feature Extraction
Normally, in a pattern recognition system each sample is represented by a set

of features, called vector. Feature extraction is the process of transforming
the input patterns either by means of a linear or a non-linear transformation
[23]. Each MUP with n number of samples is reduced into a point x in a
d − dimesnsional space:
x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xd ]T , (d ≤ n) (2.4)

What we choose as the space of features to represent the MUPs has a significant
role on the accuracy and speed of the decomposition algorithm. No matter the
technique used for data clustering and classification, the features with which
they are fed have a great impact on their accuracy. It is essential for a feature
vector to:
• be easily computed
• contain the least redundancies (the feature values should be uncorrelated

as possible)
• be the most powerful in discriminating between different MUs
• and be robust to MUPs variability in a single MUPT [24].
Different features have been used in the literature which can be categorized
as: the time samples themselves, first or second derivative of them, features
regarding the morphology of the MUPs, Fourier transform or power spectrum
coefficients, and Wavelet coefficients. Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to this
matter.
2.4.5 Clustering and Classification
In machine learning and statistics, classification is the problem of assigning a

label for a new observation, on the basis of a model learned from a training set
of data containing observations whose category membership is already known.
On the other hand, cluster analysis or clustering is the task of grouping a
set of objects in such a way that objects in the same group (called a cluster)
are more similar in some sense, to each other than to those in other clusters.
EMG decomposition by its nature is a task of clustering similar MUPs into
their corresponding MUPTs. There is no knowledge about the number of
activated motor units, in advance. In the clustering stage, we seek an estimate
for the number of active MUs that contributed significantly in the recorded
EMG. Subsequently, we need to group the MUPs into their belonging MUPTs.
Clustering may be succeeded by a supervised classification in which MUPs

are re-classified into a pre-known number of classes. The number of classes and
the representative of each class is learned in the clustering stage. Those MUPs
which were not labeled in the clustering stage, will be assigned to the most
similar class. Unsupervised and supervised classification stages may be iter-
ated until the maximum certainty of assigning MUPs into their corresponding
MUPTs is achieved [16].
Firing pattern information can assist the decision makings in the classifica-
tion step of those contractions for which firing of the MUPTs can be assumed
stationary. Firing pattern information can be used passively to validate the
results of classification or actively during the process of classification along
with MUP shape information. Figure 2.8 shows a 1s interval of an EMG sig-
nal and the result of the classification step: the MUPs and their corresponding
occurrence time and MUPTs.
Common clustering techniques employed in EMG decomposition include
single or complete linkage, minimum spanning tree, self organizing neural
networks, fuzzy c-means, and k-means. Template matching, certainty-based
methods, and artificial neural networks are used in classification.
2.4.6 Resolution of superimposed MUPs
Since MUs fire independently in time, the fact that the superposition of MUPs
of different MUs might appear in the EMG signal is unavoidable (Figure 2.9).
In a full decomposition system, the superimposed MUPs (SMUPs) must be
resolved into their originating MUPs. To achieve this, two techniques have
been used: peel-off method [13, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30], and modeling [31, 32, 33].
After classification task is complete, the MUP templates are available. In
the peel-off method the cross-correlation of the SMUPs with each template is
measured. The most correlated template is “peeled off” from the SMUP and
the procedure goes on until all the SMUPs are resolved into their corresponding
MUPs.
In modeling methods, an iterative algorithm is designed: For each SMUP, an
EMG Signal
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
6 8 5 1 1 5 7
Unassigned MUPs
Train #9
Train #8
Train #7
Train #6
Train #5
5
Train #4
Train #3
Train #2
8 4
Train #1
MUPT Templates
15
Figure 2.8: 1s of an EMG signal and its decomposition results [25]. (MUP amplitudes are expanded)
Figure 2.9: Superimposed MUPS
optimal model is sought. Each model which is the summation of different

combinations of the templates is tested until the most fitting one with highest
matching criterion is found.
2.4.7 Evaluation of an EMG decompostion algorithm
Before using a decomposition system, for either clinical or research purposes,

the validity of the extracted MUPTs needs to be confirmed. The options are
qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Qualitative validation includes check-
ing the consistency of the MUPs assigned to each MUPT by inspecting the
shimmer plot and making sure that the histogram of Inter-Discharge Interval
(IDI) is a Gaussian shape [34, 18, 35]. The instantaneous firing rate plot must
have a regular pattern with little amount of variations. Figure 2.10 and 2.11
show the output of two decomposition systems together with their qualitative
evaluation measurements.
Quantitative evaluations can be performed in three ways [9, 36, 37, 38]:
• Using simulated data where there is a prior knowledge about the label
of each produced MUP.
• Using annotated real data for which an expert clinician has assigned
labels to each segmented MUP.
• Simultaneously applying the decomposition algorithm to two signals ac-

quired from the same contraction via two different electrodes and cross-
comparing the results.
Figure 2.10: VBEMGD results [39], Shimmer plots (first column), MUPs tem-
plates (second column), IDI histogram of each MU (third column), and Firing
pattern of each MU (fourth column)
Figure 2.11: Output of an EMG decomposition system [34]. The shimmer plot,
IDIs histograms, and a sample of the pulse train for each MU are presented in
the left, center and right columns, respectively.
Chapter 3
Literature Review
This chapter summarizes the developed EMG decomposition systems from the
perspective of the features they have used. Detailed reviews concerning all the
steps and aspects of these system can be seen in [16, 40]
3.1 Time Features

Traditionally time samples (raw MUP data) themselves are used as features.
Figure 3.1 shows the discrete values of time samples derived from a MUP to
form a feature vector x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xd ]T . The sampling frequency must obey
Nyquist rate.
Lefever and De Luca [26, 41] used template matching and signal firing
statistics in a process of decision making. Their semi-automatic system called
1
PD-I presents a visual platform so the user can intervene in procedure and
enhance the outcome of decomposition.
2
Stashuk and his coworkers developed DQEMG [42] which fed its cluster-
ing algorithm with time samples of the MUPs as the features. Firing pattern
statistics were used to stabilize the results of the clustering stage. After the
number of MUs and the their templates being determined in the clustering
stage, a supervised classification technique consisting of three decision func-
1
precision decomposition
2
decomposition-based quantitative EMG
20
CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW 21
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Figure 3.1: Raw time samples of a MUP
tions, each giving a certainty measure, were used to classify the MUPs into
their corresponding MUs.
Hassoun et al. [43, 44] used an artificial neural network in order to learn,
in an unsupervised manner, the template waveforms of different MUs, given
raw data as feature vector. They have called their system NNERVE 3 .
Both EMGPAD4 [45] and EMGTools [19] developed by Nikolic and Krarup
used raw time samples in the clustering stage. A special distance measure con-
sidering the subtraction of two segmented MUPs and their root mean square
is introduced and based on these values, MUPs are clustered using a minimum
spanning tree (MST) method. An optimization algorithm is designed to find
models for compound segments produced from the summations of time-shifted
templates. Compound segments were then removed from the results and the
original templates were considered instead.
Christodoulou and Pattichis [46, 20] worked on a Kohonen self organiz-
ing feature maps algorithm (SOFM) for an unsupervised classification of the
MUPs. An additional learning vector quantization (LVQ) is used to enhance
the performance of classification. Moreover, a simpler statistical pattern recog-
nition method based on comparing the MUPs by considering their Euclidean
distance is designed. The joint SOFM-LVQ system outperforms the SOFM
3
neural network extraction of repetitive vectors for electromyography
4
EMG precision automatic decomposition
and statistical methods in classification accuracy.

Haas and Meyer’s ARTMUP [27, 47] imposed single linkage cluster analysis
on time-aligned segmented MUPs. However, Gut and Moschytz [21] viewed
the problem from a digital communication perspective. They obtained MUP
templates of an input EMG signal using ARTMUP and afterwards developed
their own system. An EMG signal source is modeled as a transmitter where
the receiver has to optimally estimate and decode the sequence of activated
MUs i.e. their firing patterns. The performance of maximum-likelihood esti-
mator (ML) were compared to their designed maximum a posteriori estimator
(MAP). They have reported that MAP technique outperforms ML by 5% in
accuracy.
Loeliger’s work on factor graphs [48] has proved to be applicable in the case
of EMG signal decomposition problem. In their work, Koch and Loeliger [49]
have expressed EMG signal generation from the viewpoint of factor graphs.
Sum-product algorithm (or loopy belief propagation) is then used to find the
MAP estimates of the generating sources, in the case of decomposition the
MUs which have fired in a specific time.
Katsis et al. [13] imposed fuzzy k-means clustering on the segmented MUPs
and exploited support vector machines (SVM) in order to classify them into
normal, neuropathic, and myopathic. Stashuk et al. have used first and second
order difference filter to represent the signal.
Nawab and De Luca [50] addressed the problems of PD-I in which user
intervention was required to improve the results. PD-II. Two more classifiers
are added to refine the previously used MAP classifier. The first one integrates
those MUPs of a MU which are falsely classified into two groups. Another
refining classifier handles the difficulties with superimposed MUPs [51].
Erim and Lin [52] employed a fuzzy inference system (FIS) following the
clustering stage so it mimics the common required interventions which are
usually managed by a user. The act of matching the MUPs into the most
proper template is done by the FIS which is provided with fuzzy rules derived
from the shape similarity and firing pattern criteria. Two other FISes are
exploited to resolve superimposed MUPs and merge similar clusters.

Parsaei and Stashuk’s VBEMGD 5 [39] incorporated MU firing pattern in-
formation in both the clustering and classification tasks. Several supervised
classifiers determine whether the MUPTs have to be split or merged based
on a MUPT measure of validity. The decomposition accuracy of this system
outperformed DQEMG.
3.2 Morphological Features

Figure 3.2 expresses a scheme of morphological features derived for a sample
MUP. In their system called MMA6 , Nandedkar et al. [22] employed a rule-
Figure 3.2: Morphological Features, from [53]
based classification in which both time and morphological features were used.
A segmented MUP had to satisfy three successively ordered criteria in order
to be assigned to a pre-defined class; otherwise, the MUP itself became the
template of a new class. After the classes were built up, morphological mea-
surements were computed and then provided to the user via an interface so
he or she could decide about the validity of the results. The morphological
5
validity-based EMG decomposition
6
Multimotor unit action potential analysis
features include: duration, peak-to-peak amplitude, rectified area, and number

of phases and turns.
In another work by Katsis et al. [14], five morphological features including
Amplitude, Duration, Rise Time , Area ,and Number of Phases are extracted
from the decomposed signal. The feature vector is input into a radial basis
function artificial neural network (RBFANN) to be classified into healthy and
diseased MUPs.
Gerber et al. [31], Loudon et al. [54], and Stalberg et al. [55] have extracted
specific morphological features such as maximal slope, peak to peak amplitude,
turns, area, etc. from the time samples in order to downsize the feature space.
7
MTLEMG of Florestal et al. [56] extracts symbolic features from MUPs
including the sequence for which peaks and valleys occurs, their proportional
magnitude, and time between occurrences of these extrema.
3.3 Frequency Features

ADEMG8 developed by Mc.Gill et al. [17] exploited the Euclidean distance
of discrete Fourier transform (DFT) coefficients of the filtered signal from the
corresponding template in its template matching process. Ge et al. used the
same feature space [57].
EMGLAB by McGill et al. [18] is an open-source program with a graphical
interface written in MATLAB. First, an automatic algorithm seeks a portion
of the signal with predefined length for optimal templates. It contains inter-
active tools so the user can add and/or remove the acquired templates and
improve the results in an iterative manner. The firing pattern of the MUPTs
are provided to the user for the purpose of validating the consistency of the
classification task. MUPs are represented by their DFT or equivalently real
trigonometric polynomial coefficients.
Stashuk and De Bruin [58] have reduced the dimensionality of the feature
7
Montreal EMG decomposition
8
Automatic decomposition electromyography
space by using the estimated power spectrum coefficients[59]. Since power

spectrum does not convey phase information it has the benefit of not having
to deal with alignment of MUPs but at the cost of losing accuracy.
3.4 Wavelet Features

EMG-LODEC9 [60] based on the works of Zennaro [61] and Wellig [62] uses
Daubechies wavelet coefficients as the features. They showed both analytically
and by experimenting on simulated data that lower bands of wavelet coeffi-
cients exhibit lower shimmer and hence more appropriate to represent MUPs
in a new feature space. They have reported that regarding accuracy their
system outperforms the method of Gut and Moschytz [21] .
Yamada et al. [63], in their study compared the accuracy of a decompo-
sition system using either wavelet coefficients or their principal components.
After applying complete linkage clustering on both feature vectors, the ones
enhanced by principal component analysis are reported to exceed in accuracy.
Ren et al. [64] have used and compared four different feature sets in the
minimum spanning tree clustering algorithm: original data, the waveform mor-
phological features, wavelet coefficients, and a fuzzy-based optimal wavelet
packet features[65]. A fuzzy C-means (FCM) classification method is also
used to refine the results. Accuracy and processing time are compared for all
the methods and refinements they have introduced. The reported that the
best choice is using the optimal wavelet packet features and including FCM-
optimized classification.
Rasheed et al. [66] used both first-order discrete derivative and also wavelet-
domain features. Daubechies-4 mother wavelet was chosen and a 6-level dis-
crete wavelet transform was executed. Only detail coefficients at levels 4-6
were fed to their hybrid classifiers.
Table 3.1 summarizes all the aforementioned researches in this chapter.
9
(ElectroMyoGram LOng-term DEComposition
Table 3.1: Summary of EMG decomposition algorithms regarding the features

being used
Features used Researches

Lefever and De Luca (PD-I) [26, 41]
Stashuk (DQEMG) [42]
Hassoun et al. (NNERVE) [43, 44]
Nikolic and Krarup (EMGPAD [45], EMGTools [19])
Christodoulou and Pattichis [46, 20]
Haas and Meyer (ARTMUP) [27, 47]
Time domain
Gut and Moschytz [21]
Koch and Loeliger [49]
Katsis et al. [13]
Nawab and De Luca (PD-II) [51, 50]
Erim and Lin [52]
Parsaei and Stashuk (VBEMGD) [39]
Nandedkar et al. (MMA) [22]
Katsis et al. [14]
Gerber et al. [31]
Morphological
Loudon et al. [54]
Stalberg et al. [55]
Florestal et al. (MTLEMG) [56]
McGill et al. (ADEMG) [17]
Freq. domain Stashuk and De Bruin [58]
McGill et al. (EMGLAB) [18]
Zennaro [61] and Wellig [62] (EMG-LODEC) [60]
(Lower bands coefficients)
Yamada et al. [63]
(Principal Components of the coefficients)
Wavelet domain Ren et al. [64]
(Optimal Wavelet packets features)
Rasheed et al. [66]
(detail coefficients at levels 4-6 in a 6-level
decompostion)
Chapter 4
Materials and Methods
This chapter begins with the definition of three techniques of measuring the
power of a feature in discriminating between different MUs. Afterwards, the
main four feature domains discussed in the previous chapter and their extrac-
tion techniques are described in detail. The data that has been used for the
experiments of this thesis is also introduced.
4.1 Separability Measurement

In order to measure the power of a feature in distinguishing between different
MUPTs, proper evaluations with suitable criteria must be imposed on each
subset of features.
4.1.1 Decomposability Index
Inspired by Fisher’s criterion, Decomposability Index (DI) is a metric intro-

duced in [39, 35] to asses a feature vector according to its power in discrim-
inating between different MUPTs of an EMG signal. Primarily, a quantity
similar to the objective function of Fisher’s linear discriminant, based on the
compactness and separability of the data, is calculated for each MUPT:

SBi,j
Ji (x) = min (4.1)
i=1,2,..,N,i6=j SWi,j
where N is the number of MUPTs (or we can say clusters) of a given EMG
signal, SBi,j is the between-train variance of the ith and j th MUPTs, and SWi,j
27
CHAPTER 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS 28
is the within-train variance of these two trains estimated as:
SBi,j = ni kx̄i − x̄k2 + nj kx¯j − x̄k2 (4.2)
where x̄i and ni are the sample mean and the number of samples in the ith
MUPT respectively and x̄ is the mean of all the feature vectors.
ni nj
X X
2
SWi,j = kxi,k − x̄i k + kxj,l − x¯j k2 (4.3)
k=1 l=1
with xi,k being k th sample of the ith MU. DI is attained by finding the median
of Ji (x):
DI = median{J1 (x), J2 (x), ..., JN (x)} (4.4)
4.1.2 Accuracy-based Evaluation
Predictive accuracy of a classifier is a common criterion to evaluate the quality

of features used to represent patterns. In this method, the accuracy a prede-
termined learning algorithm over different set of features is estimated and the
set that provides the highest accuracy is selected as the best feature set. The
main idea here is that the more powerful the features, the higher the accuracy
of the classifiers will be. In this work, a kNN classifier with k=5 is chosen for
all features. Cross validation were used to find an optimum value for k.
4.1.3 Information-based Evaulation
Sheikholeslami and Stashuk [67] used mutual information to evaluate their ex-
tracted features in the process of MUP optimal feature selection. If we consider
the observed feature as a continuous random variable X and its corresponding
MUPT class a discrete random variable C, their average mutual information
is defined by:
XZ
I(X; C) , P (x, c)I(x; c)dx (4.5)
c∈C x
where the pointwise mutual information is:
P (x|c) P (c|x)
I(x; c) , log = log (4.6)
P (x) P (c)
0.08
MU 1 hist
MU 1 pdf
MU 2 hist
MU 2 pdf
0.07 MU 3 hist
MU 3 pdf
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Figure 4.1: Estimating conditional probability density function of a morpho-

logical feature: (P (x|c) for maximum positive slope)
Imagine we have observed a MUP sample with feature vector x and we want
to assign it a MUPT to which we think it belongs. If x is represented by
an informative feature its label can be easily guessed. I(x; c) measures the
amount of information about the corresponding class we obtain when a sample
x belonging to MUPT c is observed.
For an extreme case, if the input feature and the output class are totally
independent; we have P (c|x) = P (c), hence I(x; c) = 0 which means that x
gives no information about the output class. On the other hand, if by observing
x, one could surely deduce that the output class is c; then P (c|x) = 1 and the
mutual information equals the self-information of c , i.e. log P 1(c) .
P (x), the probability density function of random variable x and its condi-
tional form P (x|c), are estimated from the histogram of x. Figure 4.1 shows
the histogram and the estimated pdf of a morphological feature which is ex-
tracted from a signal containing 3 MUPTs. P (c), the probability distribution
function of random variable c is calculated by dividing the number of samples
ni
in each class to the total number of samples: P (ci ) = n
20
0.8
2.5
2
15 0.6
1.5
0.4
10
Amplitude
Amplitude
Amplitude
0.2
0.5
5
0
0
-0.5 -0.2
-1
-5 -0.4
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Samples Samples Samples
(a) MUP samples without (b) First difference of (c) Second difference of
feature extraction MUPs MUPs
Figure 4.2: Time domain features
4.2 Time domain Features

4.2.1 Raw time samples
Raw time samples are the exact values of a MUP in time domain after analog
to digital conversion (Figure 3.1). Primarily, to be used as a benchmark, the
values of DI and kNN classifier error rate for raw time samples of MUPs have
to be calculated.
In our acquired data, the signals have sample rates of 31.25 KHz. A
window with the length of 161 samples can extract MUPs with lengths of
5.152 ms. The MUPs for an EMG signal with three MUPTs is shown in
Figure 4.2a.
Right
4.2.2 First and second order difference of time samples
First and second difference of MUPs shown in Figure 4.2b and 4.2c respectively,
are calculated as:
x0 (n) = x (n + 1) − x (n) (4.7)
x00 (n) = x (n + 2) − 2x (n + 1) + x (n) (4.8)
For the sake of comparison the first and second order “low-pass differentiators”
proposed by McGill et.al [17] are also evaluated.
1st order filter: y1 (n) = x (n) − x (n − 2) (4.9)
2nd order filter: y2 (n) = x (n) − x (n − 1) − x (n − 2) + x (n − 3) (4.10)

Figure 4.3: A MUP before and after low-pass filtering
MUP
Max. Positive Slope
Max Negative Slope
Figure 4.4: Morphological features: Maximum positive and negative slopes.
4.3 Morphological Features

By taking into consideration the morphology of each MUP, concise but valu-
able information about them can be acquired. These class of features have the
benefit of conveying structural and physiological interpretation for the physi-
cians. However, morphological features are highly sensitive to high-frequency
noise. A simple moving average filter [68] can significantly enhance the decom-
posability of these features. A 10-point moving average filter is used in our
experiments. A noisy MUP before and after filtering is shown in Figure 4.3.
What follows is the description of morphological feature extraction.
Slopes
The maximum and minimum values of the first difference of a MUP is consid-
ered as the highest positive and negative slopes (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.5: Morphological features: Under-curve area.
Figure 4.6: Morphological features: Peak analysis.
Area
The area under the curve of a rectified MUP and its 1st difference (Figure 4.5)
is computed with trapz function in MATLAB numerically.
Peak analysis parameters
Values and location of the peaks of the MUPs of different MUs might contain
discriminative information. Primarily, for each MUP, the highest and lowest
peaks are derived. Peak to peak amplitude is the difference between the highest
and the lowest peaks. The time at which a peak is located is of interest too,
hence the time duration from one peak to the other one is also regarded. The
width of a peak is computed as the distance between the points to the left and
right of the peak where the signal intercepts a reference line whose height is
half of the peak value. Duration is defined by the time from the first to the
last peak or valley of a MUP (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.7: Morphological features: Squares show zero crossings and circles
represent peaks or valleys.
Number of phases and turns
Each change in the direction of a portion of a MUP is called a turn while

phase being a cross and return to the baseline. Number of phases equals to
the number of zero-crossings plus one. Number of turns equals the number of
all the peaks and valleys in the MUP (Figure 4.7).
Thickness
Thickness is defined as the ratio of area to peak-to-peak amplitude.
4.4 Frequency Domain Features

Features extracted from the frequency domain representation of a MUP are
studied in this section.
4.4.1 Discrete Fourier Transform Coefficients
The discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of vector x with length N is defined by

N
X −1
Xk , xn · e−j2πkn/N , k∈Z (4.11)
n=0
which is a periodic sequence of length N . [Xk ]T itself can be used as a feature

vector. [Xk Xk∗ ]T can also be used which is an estimation of the power of the
signal at each frequency component. Equation 4.11 can be seen as a filtering
process in which each Xk reveals the amount of frequency content of the signal.
However, it suffers from low resolution of frequency since only N components

with normalized frequencies of k/N are present.
4.4.2 Power Spectral Density
According to Parseval’s theorem, the total energy of the signal must remain
the same before and after Fourier transformation [69]. Power Spectral Density
(PSD) shows how the power contained in a signal is distributed in the frequency
domain. It equals the Fourier transform of the auto-correlation function.
Z ∞ Z ∞Z ∞
−jωτ
F[R(τ )] = R(τ )e dτ = x(t)x(t + τ )e−jωτ dtdτ (4.12)
−∞ −∞ −∞
For a stochastic signal with finite data available, PSD has to be estimated.
Estimation techniques include nonparametric methods such as Periodogram
and Welch’s and parametric methods such as Yule-Walker and Burg.
In this thesis, PSD is estimated using the functions in MATLAB corre-
sponding to the following methods: Periodogram, Welch, Multitaper,Yule-Walker,
Burg, Covariance, and Modified Covariance.
4.5 Wavelet Domain Features

Wavelet transform of a signal is an efficient representation including both time
and frequency information. Continuous wavelet transform (CWT) of a square
integrable signal x(t) is defined by
Z ∞
1 ∗ t−b
Xw (a, b) , x(t) p ψ dt (4.13)
−∞ |a| a
where real numbers a and b are called scale (or dilation) and translation pa-
rameters, respectively and ψ(t) is the mother wavelet. CWT, even when im-
plemented in discrete time is highly redundant.
Discrete wavelet transform (DWT) of a signal with length N is attained by

choosing a = 2j and b = k2j and considering Equation 4.13 as the convolution
of x(t) and h(t) = √12j ψ −t

2j
.
It is more common to view DWT from filter banks perspective.
Figure 4.8: Wavelet decomposition with a 3-level filter bank
Table 4.1: Wavelet decomposition filters
Wavelet Families Name in MATLAB
Daubechies db1, db2, db3, db4, db5, db6, db7, db8,

db9, db10, db11, db12, db13, db14, db15
Symlets sym2, sym3, sym4, sym5, sym6, sym7, sym8
Coiflets coif1, coif2, coif3, coif4, coif5
bior1.1, bior1.3, bior1.5, bior2.2,
Biorthogonal
bior4.4, bior5.5, bior6.8
rbio1.1, rbio1.3, rbio1.5, rbio2.2,
Reverse rbio2.4, rbio2.6, rbio2.8, rbio3.1,
Biorthogonal rbio3.3, rbio3.5, rbio3.7, rbio3.9,
rbio4.4, rbio5.5, rbio6.8
Discrete Meyer dmey
∞
X
ylow [n] = x[k]h[2n − k] (approximation)
k=−∞
∞ (4.14)
X
yhigh [n] = x[k]g[2n − k] (detail)
k=−∞
Each segmented MUP has to be fed into a filter bank shown in Figure 4.8.
Wavelet coefficients derived from different wavelet filters are studied in order
for the best sub-band to be found. Wavelet decomposition filters which are
used in this thesis are given in Table 4.1.
1.1
1 X: 7
Y: 0.9589
Conveying Information %
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Principal Components
Figure 4.9: Normalized cumulative variance of principal components of raw

time samples
4.6 Principal Components of features

Principal component analysis (PCA) was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson [70].
It is an unsupervised method that tries to seek a set of new orthogonal variables
each of which is a linear combination of the original variables. The criterion
of orthogonality ensures that we have the option of choosing new components
with the least amount of redundant information[71]. We can expect that after
applying PCA on a set of MUPs and choosing those components that possess
95% of the variance, a new space of features is obtained in which MUs can be
separated with less difficulty. Figure 4.9 suggests that a feature vector with
161 elements is reduced to 9 after applying PCA.
Moreover, PCA is a good tool for visualization of high dimensional data.

In this thesis, PCA is imposed both on time samples and wavelet coefficients.
It is applied to the wavelet coefficients in two ways: First, it is imposed to
all coefficients grouped together. Second, the principal components of each of
the coefficients are calculated separately. It is also used to visualize data in
feature domains of dimension two or more.
The function princomp in MATLAB projects the data into the space of the
new components. It also gives the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix which
is proportional to the total variance of data. A component with a higher
eigenvalue conveys more variance and is expected to provide more information
about the class of an observed MUP.
Figure 4.10 shows a signal with 3 MUPTs after it is projected into the
plane of the first and second principal components. We can see that although
PCA does not know the labels, it can transform data into a space with simply
just two dimensions in which MUPs can easily be clustered.
2
Second Principal Component
-1
-2
-3
-4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
First Principal Component
Figure 4.10: Enhanced separation of data in the plane of the first two principal
components (Here, PCA is applied to Detail-3 coefficent of bior 2.2 wavelet
decomposition)
4.7 Data Acquisition

In their work, Hamilton-Wright and Stashuk [72] have introduced a physiolog-
ical based model for muscle. Neuromuscular disorders affect the characteristic
of an EMG signal in specific ways. However, when using only needle detected
EMG signals, it is difficult to extrapolate the structure and activation of sur-
rounding muscle tissue, even with the use of quantitative techniques. For
example, it remains unclear exactly how extracted EMG features relate to the
physical structure and activation of muscle, how sensitive these features are to
needle placement, and exactly what information they provide about changes
in muscle structure due to disease processes.
It is not possible to relate the clinical EMG signals to the physical structure
of muscle, simply because the information regarding the electrode position is
insufficient to confirm the relative placement of any particular fiber or group
of fibers. Therefore, to enhance and refine the clinical EMG signal, we have
to study the interrelationships between muscle structure and activation, the
spatial orientation of the needle, the physical effects of disease, and acquired
EMG signals.
One effective way to investigate these relationships is to create a detailed

physiologically based model of muscle and study the detected EMG signals.
Analysis of the data from such a model will provide valuable insight into the
properties of real muscles and their relationship to EMG signals.
The previous models mostly focus on mathematical representations which

focus on the overall statistical and spectral properties of detected EMG sig-
nals. However, in order to explore the explore relationships between changes to
muscle structure and activation and values of characteristic features extracted
from EMG signals, the simulated signals must resemble real EMG signals at all
levels of analysis, from gross measures of the composite EMG signal to subtle
measures of contributions from individual muscle fibers. Meeting these con-

straints requires that the model rigorously constructs individual MUP shapes,
based on specific electrode and muscle configurations, while also simulating
MU firing times based on a strong mathematical model of the muscle and nee-
dle properties.
In the model they have presented, the physical muscle layout, EMG needle
electrode and signal characteristics, muscle fiber potential computation, motor
unit potential voltage calculation, MU recruitment and firing pattern genera-
tion, motor unit potential trains and EMG signal generation, and filtering and
addition of noise, were studied and evaluated to win a detailed simulation.
This model is unique because it incorporates:
• The spatial relationship between muscle fibers, the MUs they constitute
and the macro level muscle morphology;
• MUP calculations combining the clinical measurement of needle tip and

cannula detected voltages contributed by physiologically positioned and
activated individual fibers;
• Variability of detected MUPs due to neuromuscular junction (NMJ)

transmission delay variability;
• A new mechanism for MU recruitment based entirely on muscle mor-

phology;
• Clinically realistic needle placement.
Both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the EMG data provided by

the simulator at each level of analysis from single MFPs to composite EMG
signals demonstrated a strong correlation with similar EMG data detected
from real muscle.
Their algorithm can simulate EMG signals in MATLAB. Their software
gives the MUPs of all motor units of a simulated contracting muscle and hence
paves our way to accurately evaluate and compare different MUP feature ex-
traction methods.
Given an EMG signal, its MUPs have to be acquired by considering the
firing times. A window is placed on the signal at each occurrence of a firing
and a MUP is extracted from the signal as shown in Figure 2.7.
1
Moreover, real signals from EMGLAB website has been used to validate
results of simulated data.
Table 4.2: Real data used in the experiments
Contributor dataset Muscle
McGill KC. R001 brachial biceps
Doherty TJ, Stashuk DW. R003 biceps
Kamen G. R004 brachial biceps
Hogrel J-Y. R011 biceps
Figure 4.11 shows the interface of our program written in MATLAB. For
a given set of labeled MUPs, it extracts different categories of features and
calculates their evaluation measurements.
1
http://emglab.net/emglab/signals/signals.php
?
max+Solpe Decomposability Index1 : 2.26e+00
CHAPTER 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

ErrorRate for kNN(k=5) : 6.17e-02
Mutual Information max-Solpe
p2p Amp.
p2p Distance
Peak widths
Sweep Current Feat... Duration
Area
Whiten Features 1stD.Area
NumberOfPhases
NumberOfTurns
Thickness 0.5
0.4
MU #2 from 3
20 0.3
0.2
15 0.1
10 -0.1
-0.2
5 -0.3
-0.4
0 -0.5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-5
-10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Signal # 1
41
Figure 4.11: Main panel of the designed program
Chapter 5
Reuslts
Results from the evaluation of 45 simulated signals and 8 real signals are re-
ported in this chapter. For each plot, a smoothing spline is fitted to the data.
The values of Decomposability Index and kNN classification accuracy (k = 5)
for the dataset categorized into three sets are given in Table 5.1, Figure 5.1
and 5.2.
Class-Feature mutual information, Decomposability Index, and predictive ac-
curacy of morphological features can be seen in Figure 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Pre-
dictive accuracy of frequency domain features is shown in Figure 5.6.
For the sake of brevity, only results regarding the bior2.2 function from a 4-
level wavelet domain analysis is brought in Figure 5.7. The same structure
after applying PCA to the coefficients is in Figure 5.8. The whole values of
Decomposability Indices for wavelet domain analysis are available in Table 5.4.
42
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS 43
Table 5.1: Decomposability Index and kNN classifier accuracy (k = 5) for time
domain features
set1 set2 set3
No. of Intensity No. of Intensity No. of Intensity

(MUs) pps (MUs) pps (MUs) pps
3-5 24 - 55 6-9 51 - 100 10 - 15 80 - 205
raw 0.81 ± 0.32 0.42 ± 0.16 0.23 ± 0.08

Decomposability Index
raw p.c. 0.89 ± 0.37 0.44 ± 0.17 0.24 ± 0.08
1st difference 1.27 ± 0.40 0.55 ± 0.20 0.33 ± 0.13
1st diff. p.c. 1.53 ± 0.55 0.62 ± 0.23 0.36 ± 0.15
1st order filter 1.01 ± 0.33 0.44 ± 0.15 0.26 ± 0.10
2nd difference 0.26 ± 0.10 0.12 ± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.02
2nd order filter 0.15 ± 0.06 0.62 ± 0.23 0.03 ± 0.01
raw 95.8 ± 2.08 87.2 ± 4.04 73.6 ± 7.24
raw p.c. 95.3 ± 2.39 85.8 ± 4.67 70.9 ± 8.63

kNN Accuracy %
1st difference 97.5 ± 1.26 91.2 ± 2.85 81.1 ± 5.60
1st diff. p.c. 97.5 ± 1.24 91.3 ± 2.77 81.4 ± 5.32
1st order filter 97.2 ± 1.48 90.5 ± 3.09 79.8 ± 5.74
2nd difference 93.4 ± 8.17 75.5 ± 10.6 50.6 ± 8.90
2nd order filter 93.9 ± 5.72 78.3 ± 9.21 56.8 ± 8.39

CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
2.5
Raw
1st Der.
2nd Der.
RawPCA
1st Order
2nd order
1st Der.Prin.Comp.
2
1.5
0.5
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.1: Ttime domain features, Decomposability Index
44
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
100
Raw
1st Der.
2nd Der.
RawPCA
1st Order
90 2nd order
1st Der.Prin.Comp.
80
Accuracy %
70
60
50
40
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.2: Time domain features, kNN classifier accuracy (k = 5)
45
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
0.5
max+Solpe
max-Solpe
p2p Amp.
0.45
p2p Distance
Duration
Area
0.4 1stD.Area
NumberOfPhases
NumberOfTurns
Thickness
0.35
0.3
Mutual Information
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.3: Morphological features, Mutual information analysis
46
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
2.5
max+Solpe
max-Solpe
p2p Amp.
p2p Distance
Peak widths
Duration
Area
2 1stD.Area
NumberOfPhases
NumberOfTurns
Thickness
1.5
0.5
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.4: Morphological features, Decomposability Index
47
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
90
max+Solpe
max-Solpe
p2p Amp.
80 p2p Distance
Peak widths
Duration
Area
1stD.Area
70 NumberOfPhases
NumberOfTurns
Thickness
60
50
Accuracy %
40
30
20
10
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.5: Morphological features, kNN classifier accuracy (k = 5)
48
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
1
FFT
Periodo.
Pwelch
0.9
PMTM
Yu.-Wa.
Burg
Covar.
0.8 Modified Cov
0.7
0.6
D.I.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.6: Frequency domain features, Decomposability Index
49
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
bior2.2
2.5
Approx 4
Detail 4
Detail 3
Detail 2
Detail 1
Benchmark(raw)
1st Diff. P.C.
2
1.5
D.I.
0.5
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.7: Decomposability Index, Wavelet coefficients (bior 2.2 filters in a 4-level decomposition)
50
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
bior2.2
3.5
Approx4
Detail4
Detail3
Detail2
Detail1
3 Benchmark(raw)
1st Diff. P.C.
2.5
2
D.I.
1.5
0.5
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
nMU
Figure 5.8: Decomposability Index after applying PCA on wavelet coefficients (bior 2.2 filters in a 4-level decomposition)
51
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS 52
Table 5.2: Decomposability Index, Time features from real data
no. 1st 1st

1st 2nd Raw- 2nd
Data of Raw Or- Der.
Der. Der. PCA order
MUs der P.C.
R001 16 0.051 0.100 0.100 0.047 0.084 0.076 0.105

R001 10 0.269 0.268 0.186 0.284 0.279 0.168 0.295
R003 9 0.061 0.064 0.063 0.064 0.059 0.045 0.068

R003 9 0.117 0.115 0.115 0.123 0.110 0.070 0.119
R004 8 0.218 0.140 0.083 0.239 0.151 0.093 0.153
R011 6 0.223 0.244 0.052 0.231 0.219 0.027 0.261

R011 6 0.266 0.259 0.028 0.282 0.239 0.038 0.276
Table 5.3: Decomposability Index, Morphological features from real data
no. max max p2p

p2p Peak Num-
Data of + - Dis- Area
Amp. widths berOf-
MUs Solpe Solpe tance
Phases
R001 16 0.045 0.033 0.025 0.007 0.012 0.011 0.010

R001 10 0.206 0.100 0.142 0.001 0.017 0.052 0.007
R003 9 0.023 0.052 0.073 0.010 0.008 0.068 0.008

R003 9 0.220 0.251 0.232 0.002 0.059 0.114 0.016
R004 8 0.126 0.150 0.237 0.026 0.052 0.198 0.002
R011 4 0.240 0.372 0.408 0.016 0.068 0.275 0.005

R011 6 0.256 0.317 0.292 0.002 0.045 0.304 0.006
R011 6 0.281 0.275 0.303 0.008 0.025 0.314 0.058
Approx. 4 PCA Approx. 4 Detail 4 PCA Detail 4 Detail 3 PCA Detail 3 Detail 2 PCA Detail 2 Detail 1 PCA Detail 1
db1 0.32 [ 0.19 0.55 ] 0.32 [ 0.20 0.59 ] 0.41 [ 0.29 0.58 ] 0.41 [ 0.30 0.64 ] 0.59 [ 0.33 0.85 ] 0.70 [ 0.35 0.99 ] 0.58 [ 0.34 1.08 ] 0.67 [ 0.36 1.28 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.01 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.05 ]
db2 0.29 [ 0.18 0.40 ] 0.31 [ 0.19 0.41 ] 0.50 [ 0.30 0.98 ] 0.54 [ 0.32 1.07 ] 0.57 [ 0.38 1.19 ] 0.63 [ 0.42 1.37 ] 0.37 [ 0.27 0.84 ] 0.41 [ 0.30 0.95 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.24 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.24 ]
db3 0.26 [ 0.16 0.37 ] 0.26 [ 0.16 0.39 ] 0.54 [ 0.31 0.81 ] 0.59 [ 0.33 0.91 ] 0.42 [ 0.20 0.73 ] 0.44 [ 0.20 0.84 ] 0.20 [ 0.09 0.42 ] 0.21 [ 0.10 0.47 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ]
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
db4 0.24 [ 0.14 0.36 ] 0.25 [ 0.14 0.38 ] 0.35 [ 0.20 0.60 ] 0.37 [ 0.20 0.65 ] 0.35 [ 0.17 0.64 ] 0.38 [ 0.18 0.70 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.19 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.21 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.01 ]
db5 0.21 [ 0.13 0.27 ] 0.21 [ 0.13 0.29 ] 0.51 [ 0.25 0.98 ] 0.58 [ 0.27 1.12 ] 0.18 [ 0.06 0.31 ] 0.19 [ 0.06 0.33 ] 0.06 [ 0.03 0.13 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.13 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
db6 0.19 [ 0.12 0.28 ] 0.20 [ 0.12 0.30 ] 0.35 [ 0.18 0.56 ] 0.37 [ 0.18 0.61 ] 0.25 [ 0.13 0.59 ] 0.27 [ 0.14 0.68 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.10 ] 0.06 [ 0.02 0.11 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db7 0.17 [ 0.11 0.28 ] 0.17 [ 0.11 0.28 ] 0.24 [ 0.13 0.42 ] 0.26 [ 0.14 0.45 ] 0.14 [ 0.06 0.26 ] 0.15 [ 0.06 0.28 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.07 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db8 0.16 [ 0.10 0.22 ] 0.16 [ 0.10 0.22 ] 0.24 [ 0.13 0.45 ] 0.25 [ 0.13 0.49 ] 0.27 [ 0.11 0.47 ] 0.29 [ 0.11 0.52 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db9 0.15 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.15 [ 0.10 0.24 ] 0.27 [ 0.15 0.54 ] 0.29 [ 0.15 0.60 ] 0.12 [ 0.06 0.26 ] 0.13 [ 0.06 0.29 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db10 0.14 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.14 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.32 [ 0.18 0.56 ] 0.34 [ 0.18 0.61 ] 0.17 [ 0.08 0.35 ] 0.18 [ 0.09 0.38 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db11 0.14 [ 0.08 0.19 ] 0.13 [ 0.08 0.19 ] 0.47 [ 0.20 0.82 ] 0.51 [ 0.21 0.94 ] 0.13 [ 0.08 0.32 ] 0.13 [ 0.08 0.35 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db12 0.13 [ 0.08 0.20 ] 0.12 [ 0.08 0.20 ] 0.45 [ 0.23 0.88 ] 0.48 [ 0.24 0.97 ] 0.16 [ 0.06 0.32 ] 0.17 [ 0.06 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db13 0.12 [ 0.07 0.18 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.18 ] 0.45 [ 0.27 0.86 ] 0.48 [ 0.28 0.96 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.34 ] 0.16 [ 0.09 0.38 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db14 0.11 [ 0.07 0.16 ] 0.11 [ 0.07 0.16 ] 0.42 [ 0.24 0.74 ] 0.46 [ 0.25 0.84 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.24 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.26 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
db15 0.11 [ 0.07 0.17 ] 0.11 [ 0.07 0.17 ] 0.27 [ 0.13 0.50 ] 0.28 [ 0.13 0.53 ] 0.15 [ 0.07 0.31 ] 0.16 [ 0.07 0.34 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
coif1 0.26 [ 0.16 0.35 ] 0.25 [ 0.16 0.37 ] 0.65 [ 0.36 0.96 ] 0.71 [ 0.39 1.06 ] 0.46 [ 0.30 0.99 ] 0.51 [ 0.33 1.11 ] 0.29 [ 0.20 0.67 ] 0.31 [ 0.21 0.74 ] 0.11 [ 0.07 0.23 ] 0.11 [ 0.07 0.23 ]
coif2 0.19 [ 0.11 0.30 ] 0.20 [ 0.12 0.31 ] 0.31 [ 0.21 0.67 ] 0.33 [ 0.22 0.73 ] 0.19 [ 0.10 0.42 ] 0.19 [ 0.10 0.46 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.13 ] 0.06 [ 0.03 0.14 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
coif3 0.15 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.16 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.18 [ 0.10 0.28 ] 0.18 [ 0.10 0.30 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.15 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.16 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.07 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.07 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
coif4 0.13 [ 0.08 0.18 ] 0.13 [ 0.08 0.19 ] 0.13 [ 0.07 0.26 ] 0.13 [ 0.07 0.27 ] 0.10 [ 0.05 0.21 ] 0.10 [ 0.05 0.23 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
coif5 0.11 [ 0.07 0.17 ] 0.11 [ 0.07 0.16 ] 0.23 [ 0.12 0.34 ] 0.24 [ 0.11 0.36 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.16 ] 0.08 [ 0.03 0.17 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
sym2 0.29 [ 0.18 0.40 ] 0.31 [ 0.19 0.41 ] 0.50 [ 0.30 0.98 ] 0.54 [ 0.32 1.07 ] 0.57 [ 0.38 1.19 ] 0.63 [ 0.42 1.37 ] 0.37 [ 0.27 0.84 ] 0.41 [ 0.30 0.95 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.24 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.24 ]
sym3 0.26 [ 0.16 0.37 ] 0.26 [ 0.16 0.39 ] 0.54 [ 0.31 0.81 ] 0.59 [ 0.33 0.91 ] 0.42 [ 0.20 0.73 ] 0.44 [ 0.20 0.84 ] 0.20 [ 0.09 0.42 ] 0.21 [ 0.10 0.47 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ]
sym4 0.23 [ 0.14 0.34 ] 0.23 [ 0.14 0.36 ] 0.53 [ 0.31 0.82 ] 0.57 [ 0.32 0.97 ] 0.29 [ 0.11 0.51 ] 0.32 [ 0.12 0.55 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.14 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.15 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
sym5 0.21 [ 0.13 0.27 ] 0.21 [ 0.13 0.29 ] 0.66 [ 0.34 1.15 ] 0.72 [ 0.35 1.35 ] 0.16 [ 0.10 0.39 ] 0.16 [ 0.10 0.42 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
sym6 0.19 [ 0.12 0.30 ] 0.20 [ 0.12 0.30 ] 0.42 [ 0.23 0.75 ] 0.46 [ 0.25 0.83 ] 0.18 [ 0.07 0.31 ] 0.19 [ 0.07 0.33 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
sym7 0.18 [ 0.11 0.25 ] 0.18 [ 0.11 0.25 ] 0.35 [ 0.23 0.63 ] 0.38 [ 0.24 0.74 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.18 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.19 ] 0.04 [ 0.01 0.08 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.08 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
sym8 0.17 [ 0.10 0.26 ] 0.17 [ 0.10 0.26 ] 0.22 [ 0.13 0.43 ] 0.24 [ 0.14 0.46 ] 0.11 [ 0.06 0.25 ] 0.11 [ 0.06 0.27 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
dmey 0.08 [ 0.06 0.12 ] 0.07 [ 0.05 0.11 ] 0.09 [ 0.06 0.19 ] 0.09 [ 0.06 0.19 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.13 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.13 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.03 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
53
Table 5.4: Decomposability Index for Different Wavelet functions, Median [first quantile, third quantile]. For the sake of comparison
these values for time samples are 0.39 [0.24 0.62].
Approx. 4 PCA Approx. 4 Detail 4 PCA Detail 4 Detail 3 PCA Detail 3 Detail 2 PCA Detail 2 Detail 1 PCA Detail 1
bior1.1 0.32 [ 0.19 0.55 ] 0.33 [ 0.20 0.58 ] 0.41 [ 0.29 0.58 ] 0.45 [ 0.30 0.60 ] 0.59 [ 0.33 0.85 ] 0.67 [ 0.35 0.96 ] 0.58 [ 0.34 1.08 ] 0.66 [ 0.36 1.25 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.01 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.01 ]
bior1.3 0.28 [ 0.16 0.42 ] 0.29 [ 0.17 0.44 ] 0.38 [ 0.27 0.65 ] 0.39 [ 0.30 0.70 ] 0.64 [ 0.39 1.03 ] 0.73 [ 0.43 1.25 ] 0.59 [ 0.35 1.02 ] 0.67 [ 0.38 1.17 ] 0.54 [ 0.32 0.98 ] 0.54 [ 0.32 0.98 ]
bior1.5 0.23 [ 0.14 0.32 ] 0.23 [ 0.14 0.33 ] 0.47 [ 0.31 0.78 ] 0.50 [ 0.33 0.81 ] 0.57 [ 0.36 1.07 ] 0.64 [ 0.39 1.20 ] 0.52 [ 0.30 0.94 ] 0.58 [ 0.32 1.05 ] 0.53 [ 0.31 0.96 ] 0.53 [ 0.31 0.96 ]
bior2.2 0.29 [ 0.18 0.41 ] 0.31 [ 0.19 0.43 ] 0.68 [ 0.39 1.30 ] 0.75 [ 0.43 1.60 ] 0.40 [ 0.25 0.80 ] 0.43 [ 0.26 0.92 ] 0.17 [ 0.11 0.39 ] 0.18 [ 0.12 0.42 ] 0.09 [ 0.05 0.18 ] 0.09 [ 0.05 0.18 ]
CHAPTER 5. REUSLTS
bior2.4 0.25 [ 0.15 0.40 ] 0.26 [ 0.16 0.42 ] 0.54 [ 0.34 0.92 ] 0.59 [ 0.38 1.04 ] 0.26 [ 0.14 0.42 ] 0.28 [ 0.15 0.46 ] 0.15 [ 0.10 0.29 ] 0.16 [ 0.10 0.32 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.18 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.18 ]
bior2.6 0.22 [ 0.13 0.37 ] 0.23 [ 0.14 0.39 ] 0.30 [ 0.19 0.69 ] 0.31 [ 0.20 0.74 ] 0.21 [ 0.11 0.40 ] 0.22 [ 0.12 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.08 0.31 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.34 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.18 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.18 ]
bior2.8 0.21 [ 0.12 0.32 ] 0.21 [ 0.13 0.33 ] 0.13 [ 0.08 0.27 ] 0.14 [ 0.08 0.28 ] 0.17 [ 0.11 0.33 ] 0.17 [ 0.12 0.35 ] 0.14 [ 0.09 0.27 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.29 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.17 ] 0.08 [ 0.05 0.17 ]
bior3.1 0.41 [ 0.25 0.77 ] 0.45 [ 0.26 0.85 ] 0.39 [ 0.32 0.83 ] 0.41 [ 0.34 1.03 ] 0.37 [ 0.17 0.70 ] 0.40 [ 0.18 0.78 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
bior3.3 0.33 [ 0.20 0.52 ] 0.35 [ 0.20 0.55 ] 0.37 [ 0.27 0.96 ] 0.42 [ 0.29 1.09 ] 0.14 [ 0.06 0.26 ] 0.15 [ 0.06 0.28 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
bior3.5 0.28 [ 0.17 0.43 ] 0.29 [ 0.18 0.46 ] 0.28 [ 0.15 0.55 ] 0.30 [ 0.15 0.61 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.15 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.16 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
bior3.7 0.24 [ 0.16 0.33 ] 0.25 [ 0.16 0.35 ] 0.19 [ 0.11 0.44 ] 0.19 [ 0.12 0.48 ] 0.06 [ 0.03 0.16 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.17 ] 0.02 [ 0.02 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.06 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
bior3.9 0.22 [ 0.13 0.31 ] 0.22 [ 0.14 0.32 ] 0.11 [ 0.05 0.19 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.21 ] 0.13 [ 0.05 0.27 ] 0.14 [ 0.05 0.29 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
bior4.4 0.20 [ 0.12 0.29 ] 0.20 [ 0.12 0.31 ] 0.58 [ 0.31 0.97 ] 0.64 [ 0.33 1.10 ] 0.18 [ 0.07 0.31 ] 0.19 [ 0.07 0.33 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.09 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.10 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
bior5.5 0.14 [ 0.09 0.22 ] 0.14 [ 0.09 0.22 ] 0.47 [ 0.24 0.80 ] 0.52 [ 0.25 0.91 ] 0.12 [ 0.06 0.28 ] 0.13 [ 0.06 0.30 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
bior6.8 0.16 [ 0.09 0.25 ] 0.16 [ 0.10 0.26 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.31 ] 0.15 [ 0.10 0.33 ] 0.10 [ 0.05 0.18 ] 0.11 [ 0.05 0.19 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.05 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.06 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
rbio1.1 0.32 [ 0.19 0.55 ] 0.33 [ 0.20 0.58 ] 0.41 [ 0.29 0.58 ] 0.45 [ 0.30 0.60 ] 0.59 [ 0.33 0.85 ] 0.67 [ 0.35 0.96 ] 0.58 [ 0.34 1.08 ] 0.66 [ 0.36 1.25 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.01 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 1.01 ]
rbio1.3 0.26 [ 0.15 0.39 ] 0.27 [ 0.15 0.41 ] 0.36 [ 0.22 0.59 ] 0.38 [ 0.23 0.63 ] 0.46 [ 0.29 0.94 ] 0.52 [ 0.32 1.08 ] 0.19 [ 0.08 0.39 ] 0.20 [ 0.09 0.43 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ] 0.02 [ 0.01 0.04 ]
rbio1.5 0.19 [ 0.12 0.27 ] 0.19 [ 0.12 0.28 ] 0.44 [ 0.30 0.75 ] 0.47 [ 0.32 0.83 ] 0.20 [ 0.13 0.48 ] 0.22 [ 0.13 0.52 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.07 ] 0.03 [ 0.01 0.07 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
rbio2.2 0.22 [ 0.14 0.30 ] 0.23 [ 0.14 0.31 ] 0.68 [ 0.37 1.01 ] 0.74 [ 0.40 1.13 ] 0.55 [ 0.38 1.05 ] 0.61 [ 0.41 1.21 ] 0.42 [ 0.29 0.92 ] 0.46 [ 0.32 1.03 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.31 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.31 ]
rbio2.4 0.17 [ 0.11 0.24 ] 0.17 [ 0.11 0.24 ] 0.55 [ 0.33 0.97 ] 0.60 [ 0.34 1.04 ] 0.40 [ 0.17 0.63 ] 0.42 [ 0.19 0.72 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.21 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.23 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.01 ]
rbio2.6 0.14 [ 0.09 0.21 ] 0.14 [ 0.09 0.20 ] 0.37 [ 0.26 0.75 ] 0.37 [ 0.27 0.79 ] 0.12 [ 0.06 0.27 ] 0.13 [ 0.05 0.29 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.11 ] 0.05 [ 0.02 0.12 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
rbio2.8 0.12 [ 0.07 0.18 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.17 ] 0.24 [ 0.14 0.41 ] 0.25 [ 0.15 0.42 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.17 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.18 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.08 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.09 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
rbio3.1 0.25 [ 0.15 0.35 ] 0.26 [ 0.16 0.36 ] 0.44 [ 0.27 0.64 ] 0.47 [ 0.28 0.67 ] 0.57 [ 0.35 0.91 ] 0.61 [ 0.37 1.05 ] 0.63 [ 0.36 1.09 ] 0.71 [ 0.38 1.26 ] 0.57 [ 0.34 1.05 ] 0.57 [ 0.34 1.05 ]
rbio3.3 0.18 [ 0.11 0.24 ] 0.18 [ 0.11 0.25 ] 0.46 [ 0.33 0.82 ] 0.50 [ 0.35 0.90 ] 0.62 [ 0.42 1.18 ] 0.71 [ 0.48 1.36 ] 0.39 [ 0.26 0.82 ] 0.43 [ 0.28 0.95 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.09 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.09 ]
rbio3.5 0.14 [ 0.09 0.19 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.19 ] 0.42 [ 0.31 0.91 ] 0.45 [ 0.32 1.05 ] 0.33 [ 0.21 0.76 ] 0.35 [ 0.23 0.84 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.20 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.21 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ] 0.01 [ 0.00 0.01 ]
rbio3.7 0.12 [ 0.07 0.16 ] 0.12 [ 0.07 0.17 ] 0.42 [ 0.26 1.00 ] 0.44 [ 0.27 1.25 ] 0.07 [ 0.04 0.15 ] 0.07 [ 0.03 0.16 ] 0.11 [ 0.05 0.21 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.22 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
rbio3.9 0.10 [ 0.07 0.15 ] 0.10 [ 0.06 0.15 ] 0.41 [ 0.21 0.82 ] 0.44 [ 0.22 0.91 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.25 ] 0.12 [ 0.05 0.26 ] 0.03 [ 0.02 0.10 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.11 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
rbio4.4 0.21 [ 0.13 0.32 ] 0.21 [ 0.14 0.32 ] 0.55 [ 0.32 0.95 ] 0.60 [ 0.35 1.04 ] 0.32 [ 0.15 0.58 ] 0.34 [ 0.16 0.63 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.20 ] 0.10 [ 0.04 0.22 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
rbio5.5 0.24 [ 0.15 0.40 ] 0.26 [ 0.16 0.41 ] 0.47 [ 0.26 0.81 ] 0.50 [ 0.27 0.88 ] 0.21 [ 0.10 0.46 ] 0.22 [ 0.11 0.50 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.17 ] 0.08 [ 0.04 0.18 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ] 0.01 [ 0.01 0.02 ]
54
rbio6.8 0.15 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.15 [ 0.09 0.23 ] 0.20 [ 0.12 0.37 ] 0.21 [ 0.12 0.40 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.18 ] 0.09 [ 0.04 0.19 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.07 ] 0.04 [ 0.02 0.08 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 ]
Table 5.4: (continued) Decomposability Index for Different Wavelet functions, Median [first quantile, third quantile]. For the sake
of comparison these values for time samples are 0.39 [0.24 0.62].
Chapter 6
Discussion
As Table 5.1, Figures 5.1 and 5.2 suggest, both taking the first difference of
raw samples and also applying PCA can enhance the performance. We can
see that the combination of these two techniques (Prinicpal component of first
difference) brings the best results.
From Figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 it can be deduced that maximum positive
and negative slope, peak to peak amplitude, and area of first difference of
the MUPs are the most informative features. However, compared to the time
domain features, morphological features are not much beneficial. The result
of peak finding procedure is highly sensitive for those MUPs which are super-
imposed by their neighbor MUs. Thus, features from peak analysis are not
contributive unless the problem of superimposed MUPs are handled primarily.
It can be inferred from Figure 5.6 that discrete Fourier coefficients convey
better separability when compared to information from power spectral density.
However, Welch’s method and multi-taper have shown the best performance
among PSD estimators.
From wavelet analysis several points are perceived. Table 5.4 suggests that
the mother wavelets db2, coif1, sym5, bior2.2, bior4.4, and rbior2.2 have a
better capability in differentiating between MUPs created by different MUs.
55
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION 56
Figure 6.1 in a box-plot depicts the values. In addition, applying PCA to the
wavelet domain feature values slightly improved the discrimination of MUPs.
However, when using PCA, one should consider its computational complexity.
Moreover, combining coefficients from different sub-bands or applying PCA

on a batch of sub-bands did not improve the values of DI. Among all the wavelet
functions studied in this work (listed in Table 5.4), the reverse bi-orthogonal
2.2 (rbior2.2) outperformed the other wavelet functions. Increasing levels from
2 to 4 improved the results. However, in a 5-level decomposition detail 5 coeffi-
cient was not informative (Figure 6.2). Hence, we can say the best separability
exists in mid-bands of wavelet domain. Increasing the order of filters did not
enhance results. For example sym2 filter outperformed sym3 , bior2.2 better
than bior2.4 and so on.
Parsaei et.al [39] have discussed how an increase in the value of Decompos-
ability Index leads to a higher classification rate in their proposed decompo-
sition algorithms (Figure 6.3). It can be suggested that instead of using time
samples as features, feeding the decomposition algorithms with feature vectors
which convey higher values of DI may help to achieve higher accuracy in the
system.
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION
4.5
100
4
95
3.5 90
Predictive Accuracy %
3 85
2.5 80
2 75
1.5 70
1 65
0.5 60
0 55
db2 sym5 coif1 bior2.2 rbio2.2 Time db2 sym5 coif1 bior2.2 rbio2.2 Time
Figure 6.1: Comparing selected wavelet functions and time samples
57
sym2
3.5
Benchmark(raw)
1st Diff. P.C.
Approx5
Detail5
Detail4
3 Detail3
Detail2
Detail1
2.5
2
D.I.
1.5
0.5
0
4 6 8 10 12 14
nMU
Figure 6.2: Increasing the number of levels in wavelet decomposition
58
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION 59
Figure 6.3: VBEMGD and DQEMG correct classification rates versus Decom-
posability Index [39]
sym2 sym2 sym2
3.5 3.5 3.5
Benchmark(raw) Benchmark(raw) Benchmark(raw)
1st Diff. P.C. 1st Diff. P.C. 1st Diff. P.C.
Approx 3 Approx4 Approx5
Detail 3 Detail4 Detail5
3 Detail 2 3 Detail3 3 Detail4
Detail 1 Detail2 Detail3
Detail1 Detail2
Detail1
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
D.I.
D.I.
D.I.
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
4 6 8 10 12 14 4 6 8 10 12 14 4 6 8 10 12 14
nMU nMU nMU
Figure 6.4: Principal component of wavelet coefficents
60
Bibliography
[1] W. M. Barber MD, Whiteside JL, “Neurophysiologic testing of the pelvic

floor,” in Sciarra JJ, ed. Gynecology and obstetrics, Lippincott Williams
and Wilkins, 2004.
[2] R. Merletti and P. A. Parker, Electromyography: physiology, engineering,

and non-invasive applications, vol. 11. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[3] K. S. Saladin, “Anatomy & physiology: 5th editio,” 2010.
[4] S. Rasheed, D. W. Stashuk, and M. S. Kamel, “Integrating heterogeneous

classifier ensembles for emg signal decomposition based on classifier agree-
ment,” Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 866–882, 2010.
[5] R. Begg, D. T. Lai, and M. Palaniswami, Computational intelligence in

biomedical engineering. CRC Press, 2007.
[6] G. Pfeiffer and K. Kunze, “Discriminant classification of motor unit po-

tentials (mups) successfully separates neurogenic and myopathic con-
ditions. a comparion of multi-and univariate diagnostical algorithms
for mup analysis,” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiol-
ogy/Electromyography and Motor Control, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 191–207,
1995.
[7] B. Cengiz, F. Ozdag, U. H. Ulas, Z. Odabasi, and O. Vural, “Discrimi-

nant analysis of various concentric needle emg and macro-emg parameters
in detecting myopathic abnormality,” Clinical neurophysiology, vol. 113,
no. 9, pp. 1423–1428, 2002.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY 62
[8] S. D. Nandedkar and P. E. Barkhaus, “Quantitative emg analysis,” in

Neuromuscular Disorders in Clinical Practice, pp. 165–199, Springer,
2014.
[9] C. Farkas, A. Hamilton-Wright, H. Parsaei, and D. W. Stashuk, “A review

of clinical quantitative electromyography,” Critical Reviews in Biomedical
Engineering, vol. 38, no. 5, 2010.
[10] R. Kendall and R. A. Werner, “Interrater reliability of the needle exam-

ination in lumbosacral radiculopathy,” Muscle & nerve, vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 238–241, 2006.
[11] T. J. Doherty and D. W. Stashuk, “Decomposition-based quantitative

electromyography: Methods and initial normative data in five muscles,”
Muscle & nerve, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 204–211, 2003.
[12] M. AbdelMaseeh, T.-W. Chen, P. Poupart, B. Smith, and D. Stashuk,

“Transparent muscle characterization using quantitative electromyogra-
phy: Different binarization mappings,” Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 511–521, 2014.
[13] C. D. Katsis, Y. Goletsis, A. Likas, D. I. Fotiadis, and I. Sarmas, “A

novel method for automated emg decomposition and muap classification,”
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 55–64, 2006.
[14] C. D. Katsis, T. P. Exarchos, C. Papaloukas, Y. Goletsis, D. I. Fotiadis,

and I. Sarmas, “A two-stage method for muap classification based on
emg decomposition,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 37, no. 9,
pp. 1232–1240, 2007.
[15] R. Merletti and D. Farina, “Analysis of intramuscular electromyogram sig-

nals,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Math-
ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 367, no. 1887, pp. 357–
368, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 63
[16] H. Parsaei, D. W. Stashuk, S. Rasheed, C. Farkas, and A. Hamilton-

Wright, “Intramuscular emg signal decomposition,” Critical Reviews in
Biomedical Engineering, vol. 38, no. 5, 2010.
[17] K. C. McGill, K. L. Cummins, and L. J. Dorfman, “Automatic decom-

position of the clinical electromyogram,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE
Transactions on, no. 7, pp. 470–477, 1985.
[18] K. C. McGill, Z. C. Lateva, and H. R. Marateb, “Emglab: an interactive

emg decomposition program,” Journal of neuroscience methods, vol. 149,
no. 2, pp. 121–133, 2005.
[19] M. Nikolic and C. Krarup, “Emgtools, an adaptive and versatile tool for
detailed emg analysis,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 2707–2718, 2011.
[20] C. Christodoulou, C. S. Pattichis, et al., “Unsupervised pattern recogni-

tion for the classification of emg signals,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 169–178, 1999.
[21] R. Gut and G. S. Moschytz, “High-precision emg signal decomposition

using communication techniques,” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2487–2494, 2000.
[22] S. D. Nandedkar, P. E. Barkhaus, and A. Charles, “Multi-motor unit ac-

tion potential analysis (mma),” Muscle & nerve, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1155–
1166, 1995.
[23] A. Kocsor, K. Kovács, and C. Szepesvári, “Margin maximizing discrimi-

nant analysis,” in Machine Learning: ECML 2004, pp. 227–238, Springer,
2004.
[24] D. Stashuk, “Emg signal decomposition: how can it be accomplished

and used?,” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 151–173, 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 64
[25] S. Rasheed, A multiclassifier approach to motor unit potential classifica-

tion for EMG signal decomposition. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo,
2006.
[26] R. S. LeFever and C. J. De Luca, “A procedure for decomposing the myo-

electric signal into its constituent action potentials-part i: technique, the-
ory, and implementation,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions
on, no. 3, pp. 149–157, 1982.
[27] W. Haas and M. Meyer, “An automatic emg decomposition system for
routine clinical examination and clinical researchartmup,” 1989.
[28] H. Etawil and D. Stashuk, “Resolving superimposed motor unit action

potentials,” Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, vol. 34,
no. 1, pp. 33–40, 1996.
[29] R. De Figueiredo and A. Gerber, “Separation of superimposed signals

by a cross-correlation method,” Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1084–1089, 1983.
[30] N. S. Hamid, R. Wotiz, and C. J. De Luca, “Improved resolution of pulse

superpositions in a knowledge-based system emg decomposition.,” in Con-
ference proceedings:... Annual International Conference of the IEEE En-
gineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society. Conference, vol. 1, pp. 69–71, 2003.
[31] A. Gerber, R. M. Studer, R. J. de Figueiredo, and G. S. Moschytz, “A

new framework and computer program for quantitative emg signal analy-
sis,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, no. 12, pp. 857–863,
1984.
[32] H. R. Marateb and K. C. McGill, “Resolving superimposed muaps using

particle swarm optimization,” IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineer-
ing, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 916, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 65
[33] J. R. Florestal, P. Mathieu, R. Plamondon, et al., “A genetic algorithm for

the resolution of superimposed motor unit action potentials,” Biomedical
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 2163–2171, 2007.
[34] A. L. D. Siqueira Júnior and A. B. Soares, “A novel method for emg

decomposition based on matched filters,” Research on Biomedical Engi-
neering, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 2015.
[35] J. Florestal, P. Mathieu, and K. McGill, “Automatic decomposition of

multichannel intramuscular emg signals,” Journal of Electromyography
and Kinesiology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2009.
[36] K. C. McGill, Z. C. Lateva, and M. E. Johanson, “Validation of a

computer-aided emg decomposition method,” in Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, 2004. IEMBS’04. 26th Annual International Confer-
ence of the IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 4744–4747, IEEE, 2004.
[37] C. Dai, Y. Li, E. Clancy, P. Bonato, A. Christie, K. C. McGill, et al., “Per-

formance of three electromyogram decomposition algorithms as a func-
tion of signal to noise ratio: Assessment with experimental and simulated
data,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB),
2014 IEEE, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2014.
[38] D. Farina, R. Colombo, R. Merletti, and H. B. Olsen, “Evaluation of

intra-muscular emg signal decomposition algorithms,” Journal of Elec-
tromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 175–187, 2001.
[39] H. Parsaei and D. W. Stashuk, “Emg signal decomposition using motor

unit potential train validity,” Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engi-
neering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 265–274, 2013.
[40] K. Calder, “An investigation into the pathophysiology of non-specific arm

pain: an examination of the utility and reliability of quantitative electo-
myography,” 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 66
[41] R. S. Lefever, A. P. Xenakis, and C. J. De Luca, “A procedure for decom-

posing the myoelectric signal into its constituent action potentials-part ii:
execution and test for accuracy,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Trans-
actions on, no. 3, pp. 158–164, 1982.
[42] D. W. Stashuk, “Decomposition and quantitative analysis of clinical elec-

tromyographic signals,” Medical engineering & physics, vol. 21, no. 6,
pp. 389–404, 1999.
[43] M. H. Hassoun, C. Wang, et al., “Nnerve: neural network extraction of

repetitive vectors for electromyography. i. algorithm,” Biomedical Engi-
neering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1039–1052, 1994.
[44] M. H. Hassoun, C. Wang, et al., “Nnerve: neural network extrac-

tion of repetitive vectors for electromyography. ii. performance analysis,”
Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1053–
1061, 1994.
[45] M. Nikolic, J. Sorensen, K. Dahl, and C. Krarup, “Detailed analysis of mo-

tor unit activity,” in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1997.
Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference of the IEEE,
vol. 3, pp. 1257–1260, IEEE, 1997.
[46] C. Christodoulou, C. S. Pattichis, et al., “A new technique for the clas-

sification and decomposition of emg signals,” in Neural Networks, 1995.
Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on, vol. 5, pp. 2303–2308,
IEEE, 1995.
[47] W. F. Haas, R. M. Studer, G. S. Moschytz, and M. Meyer, “Computer-

aided electromyography,” in Circuits and Systems, 1988., IEEE Interna-
tional Symposium on, pp. 2131–2134, IEEE, 1988.
[48] H.-A. Loeliger, “An introduction to factor graphs,” Signal Processing

Magazine, IEEE, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2004.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 67
[49] V. Koch and H.-A. Loeliger, “Emg signal decomposition by loopy belief
propagation.,” in ICASSP (5), pp. 397–400, 2005.
[50] S. H. Nawab, R. P. Wotiz, and C. J. De Luca, “Decomposition of in-

dwelling emg signals,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 105, no. 2,
pp. 700–710, 2008.
[51] S. H. Nawab, R. P. Wotiz, and C. J. De Luca, “Multi-receiver precision

decomposition of intramuscular emg signals,” in Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, 2006. EMBS’06. 28th Annual International Confer-
ence of the IEEE, pp. 1252–1255, IEEE, 2006.
[52] Z. Erim and W. Lin, “Decomposition of intramuscular emg signals using

a heuristic fuzzy expert system,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Trans-
actions on, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2180–2189, 2008.
[53] C. C. J. M. Elias, “Nerve conduction studies and electromyography.”

http://www.operativemonitoring.com/emg.htm, 2011.
[54] G. Loudon, N. Jones, and A. Sehmi, “New signal processing techniques

for the decomposition of emg signals,” Medical and Biological Engineering
and Computing, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 591–599, 1992.
[55] E. Stålberg, S. Andreassen, B. Falck, H. Lang, A. Rosenfalck, and W. Tro-

jaborg, “Quantitative analysis of individual motor unit potentials: a
proposition for standardized terminology and criteria for measurement.,”
Journal of clinical neurophysiology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 313–348, 1986.
[56] J. R. Florestal, P. A. Mathieu, and A. Malanda, “Automated decomposi-

tion of intramuscular electromyographic signals.,” IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Engineering, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 832–839, 2006.
[57] D. Ge, E. Le Carpentier, and D. Farina, “Unsupervised bayesian decom-

position of multiunit emg recordings using tabu search,” Biomedical En-
gineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 561–571, 2010.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 68
[58] D. Stashuk and H. De Bruin, “Automatic decomposition of selec-

tive needle-detected myoelectric signals,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1988.
[59] P. D. Welch, “The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of
power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified
periodograms,” IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics, vol. 15,
no. 2, pp. 70–73, 1967.
[60] D. Zennaro, P. Wellig, V. M. Koch, G. S. Moschytz, and T. Läubli, “A

software package for the decomposition of long-term multichannel emg
signals using wavelet coefficients,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Trans-
actions on, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 58–69, 2003.
[61] D. Zennaro, T. Läubli, P. Wellig, D. Krebs, M. Schnoz, A. Klipstein,

and H. Krueger, “A method to test reliability and accuracy of the decom-
position of multi-channel long-term intramuscular emg signal recordings,”
International journal of industrial ergonomics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 211–224,
2002.
[62] P. Wellig and G. S. Moschytz, “Analysis of wavelet features for myoelectric

signal classification,” in Electronics, Circuits and Systems, 1998 IEEE
International Conference on, vol. 3, pp. 109–112, IEEE, 1998.
[63] R. Yamada, J. Ushiba, Y. Tomita, and Y. Masakado, “Decomposition

of electromyographic signal by principal component analysis of wavelet
coefficients,” in Biomedical Engineering, 2003. IEEE EMBS Asian-Pacific
Conference on, pp. 118–119, IEEE, 2003.
[64] X. Ren, H. Huang, and L. Deng, “Muap classification based on wavelet

packet and fuzzy clustering technique,” in Bioinformatics and Biomedical
Engineering, 2009. ICBBE 2009. 3rd International Conference on, pp. 1–
4, IEEE, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
[65] D. Li, W. Pedrycz, and N. J. Pizzi, “Fuzzy wavelet packet based feature
extraction method and its application to biomedical signal classification,”
Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1132–
1139, 2005.
[66] S. Rasheed, D. W. Stashuk, and M. S. Kamel, “A hybrid classifier fusion

approach for motor unit potential classification during emg signal decom-
position,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 54, no. 9,
pp. 1715–1721, 2007.
[67] N. Sheikholeslami and D. Stashuk, “Supervised mutual-information based

feature selection for motor unit action potential classification,” Medical
and Biological Engineering and Computing, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 661–670,
1997.
[68] S. W. Smith et al., “The scientist and engineer’s guide to digital signal
processing,” 1997.
[69] R. M. Rangayyan, Biomedical signal analysis, vol. 33. John Wiley & Sons,
2015.
[70] K. Pearson, “Liii. on lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in
space,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and
Journal of Science, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 559–572, 1901.
[71] H. Abdi and L. J. Williams, “Principal component analysis,” Wiley Inter-

disciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 433–459,
2010.
[72] A. Hamilton-Wright and D. W. Stashuk, “Physiologically based simula-

tion of clinical emg signals,” Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 171–183, 2005.
‫چکیده‬
‫تجزیه نمودن سیگنال الکترومایوگرام عبارت است از تعیین تعداد واحدهای حرکتیِ درگیر‬
‫در یک انقباض ارادی و استخراج قطار پتانسیل هر کدام از آن واحدها‪ .‬یکی از قدمهای‬
‫مهم در تجزیهی الکترومایوگرام استخراج ویژگی میباشد که در آن هر پتانسیل واحد حرکتی‬
‫به وسیله ی یک بردار ویژگی بیان میگردد‪ .‬مانند هر سیستم شناسایی الگو‪ ،‬مرحلهی‬
‫استخراج ویژگیها میتواند در دقت نهایی و سرعت الگوریتم تجزیهی سیگنال مؤثر باشند‪.‬‬
‫عدم وجود یک پژوهش جامع در مورد قسمت استخراج ویژگی تجزیهی سیگنال‬
‫الکترومایوگرام‪ ،‬ما را به روی آوردن به این پژوهش واداشت‪.‬‬
‫در این پژوهش‪ ،‬به کمک یک الگوریتم شبیهسازی‪ ،‬تعدادی الکترومایوگرام سوزنی تولید شد‪.‬‬
‫الگوی آتش تولیدشده توسط شبیه ساز به عنوان مرجع در نظر گرفته شد و بدین صورت‬
‫پتانسیل های واحدهای حرکتی غالب در تولید هر الکترومایوگرام استخراج شد‪ .‬سپس‬
‫ویژگی های زمانی‪ ،‬مورفولوژیک‪ ،‬فرکانسی و ویولت گسسته از پتانسیلهای واحدهای‬
‫حرکتی استخراج شد‪ .‬میزان تفکیکپذیری ویژگیهای مختلفِ استخراجشده از پتانسیلهای‬
‫واحدهای حرکتی در تجزیه ی سیگنال الکترومایوگرام مورد بررسی قرار گرفتهاند‪ .‬سه معیار‬
‫مختلف برای میزان تفکیکپذیری خوشه ها مورد استفاده قرار گرفته و ویژگیهای مختلف‬
‫با آنها مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت‪.‬‬
‫در میان ویژگیهای حوزهی زمان‪ ،‬مشتق دوم و فاصله ی درّه تا قلّه در بین ویژگیهای‬
‫مورفولوژیک بهترین تفکیک را داشتند‪ .‬بهترین نتایج زمانی حاصل شد که از تجزیهی ویولت‬
‫گسسته ی چهار سطحی با توابع ‪ bior4.4 ، bior2.2، sym5، coif1، db2‬یا ‪rbior2.2‬‬
‫استفاده شد‪ .‬همچنین‪ ،‬اعمال نمودن روش ‪ PCA‬نتایج را بهبود بخشید‪.‬‬
‫كليد واژهها‪ :‬تجزیهی سیگنال الکترومایگرام‪ ،‬استخراج ویژگی‪ ،‬تفکیکپذیری خوشهها‬
‫ه‬
‫حق برداشت‬
‫نسخهبرداری (به هر روش) چه از متن کامل یا از استخراجها‪ ،‬تنها با هماهنگی استاد راهنما‬
‫و نویسندۀ ثبتشده و بر اساس دستورالعمل ارائهشده توسط کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه‬
‫علوم پزشکی شیراز امکانپذیر است (جزئیات از طریق کتابخانه دانشکدۀ مربوط‬
‫قابلدسترسی است)‪.‬‬
‫تکثیر نسخههای بیشتر‪ ،‬به هر شکل از کپیهای موجود‪ ،‬بر اساس این دستورالعمل بدون‬
‫اجازۀ کتبی استاد راهنما و نویسنده‪ ،‬امکانپذیر نیست‪.‬‬
‫مالکیت حقوق معنوی ذکرشده در این پایاننامه‪ ،‬متعلق به دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز‬
‫است‪ .‬در صورت هرگونه توافق قبلی برخالف این مالکیت با شخص سوم‪ ،‬امکان استفادۀ‬
‫بدون اجازۀ کتبی دانشگاه که شرایط چنین توافقی را تعیین مینماید‪ ،‬مجاز نیست‪.‬‬
‫استفاده از پایاننامه در مقالهها یا هر نوشتۀ علمی دیگری‪ ،‬منوط به ذکر منبع و با رعایت‬
‫ضوابط انتشارات دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز هست‪.‬‬
‫د‬
‫قدردانی‬
‫دستان مادر و پدر مهربان و فداکارم را میبوسم‪.‬‬
‫از زحمات اساتید عزیز‪ ،‬گرامی و دوستداشتنی دکتر حسین پارسائی و دکتر علی زمانی‬
‫سپاسگزاری مینمایم‪ .‬افتخار شاگردی این دو بزرگوار‪ ،‬همواره سرمایهای گرانبها برای بنده‬
‫خواهد بود‪.‬‬
‫نیز بر خود الزم میدانم که از دوستان عزیزم جناب آقای سیروس اسماعیل زاده‪ ،‬سرکار خانم‬
‫مریم دهبزرگی و سرکار خانم لیال رنجبر که با راهنماییهای علمی و حمایتهای معنوی بنده‬
‫را مورد لطف قرار دادهاند قدردانی نمایم‪.‬‬
‫ج‬
‫باسمهتعالی‬
‫اینجانب محسن غفرانیجهرمی دانشجوی رشته مهندسیپزشکی مقطع تحصیلی‬

‫کارشناسیارشد به شماره دانشجویی ‪ 3005102119‬تأیید مینمایم که کلیۀ نتایج این‬
‫پایاننامه‪ ،‬حاصل کار اینجانب و بدون هرگونه دخل و تصرف است و موارد‬
‫نسخهبرداریشده از آثار دیگران را با ذکر کامل مشخصات آوردهام‪ .‬در صورت اثبات خالف‬
‫مندرجات فوق‪ ،‬به تشخیص دانشگاه مطابق با ضوابط و مقررات حاکم (قانون حمایت از‬
‫حقوق موظفان و مصنّفان و قانون ترجمه تکثیر کتب و نشریات و آثار صوتی‪ ،‬ضوابط و‬
‫مقررات آموزشی‪ ،‬پژوهشی و انضباطی) با اینجانب رفتار خواهد شد و حق هر گونه اعتراض‬
‫در خصوص احقاق حقوق مکتب و تشخیص و تعیین تخلف و مجازات را از خویش سلب‬
‫میکنم‪ .‬در ضمن‪ ،‬مسئولیت هرگونه پاسخگویی به اشخاص‪ ،‬اعم از حقیقی و حقوقی و‬
‫مراجع ذی صالح (اعم از اداری و قضایی)‪ ،‬بر عهدۀ خودم خواهد بود و دانشگاه هیچ‬
‫مسئولیتی در اینباره نخواهد داشت‪.‬‬
‫نام ونام خانوادگی دانشجو‪ :‬محسن غفرانی جهرمی‬
‫امضاء و تاریخ‪ :‬شهریو ‪0931‬‬
‫ب‬
‫به نام خدا‬
‫عنوان‪:‬‬
‫مطالعه و بررسی ویژگيهای قابل استخراج از پتانسيل واحدهای‬
‫حرکتی حاصل از تجزیه سيگنال الكترومايوگرافی سوزنی‬
‫توسط‬
‫محسن غفرانی جهرمی‬
‫پایاننامه ارائهشده به تحصيالت تكميلی دانشگاه علوم پزشكی شيراز بهعنوان بخشی از‬
‫فعالیتهای تحصيلی الزم جهت اخذ درجه كارشناسیارشد در رشتهی‬
‫مهندسی پزشکی‬
‫گروه فیزیک و مهندسی پزشکی‬
‫دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز‬
‫ارزیابی و تصویب شده توسط‬
‫‪ -1‬دکتر حسین پارسائی‪ ،‬استادیار گروه فیزیک و مهندسی پزشکی (استاد راهنما)‬
‫‪ -2‬دکتر علی زمانی‪ ،‬استادیار گروه فیزیک و مهندسی پزشکی (استاد راهنما)‬
‫‪ -3‬دکتر اسداللّه ظریفکار‪ ،‬استاد گروه فیزیولوژی (استاد داور)‬
‫شهریور ماه ‪49‬‬

Electromyographic Signal Decomposition: Which Motor Unit Potential Features?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electromyographic Signal Decomposition: Which Motor Unit Potential Features?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

shiraz university of medical sciences

Mohsen Ghofrani Jahromi

a thesis submitted to the school of

Electromyographic Signal Decomposition:

Mohsen Ghofrani Jahromi

a thesis submitted to the school of

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

Evaluated and Approved by

Electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition is the process by which an

3.3 Frequency Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4 Materials and Methods 27

1.1 EMG signals, innervation patterns, and MUPs of healthy, neu-

2.1 Voluntary Contraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1 Raw time samples of a MUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1 Conditional probability density function estimation . . . . . . . 29

4.6 Morphological features: Peak analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.1 Ttime domain features, Decomposability Index . . . . . . . . . . 44

6.1 Comparing selected wavelet functions and time samples . . . . . 57

3.1 Summary of EMG decomposition algorithms regarding the fea-

4.1 Wavelet decomposition filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1 Decomposability Index and predictive accuracy, Time domain

assesses the characteristics of needle-detected EMG signals across a number

1.2 Objectives and Approach

Consequently, a cross comparison of the feature extraction methods used in

1.3 Overview of this Thesis

2.1 Skeletal Muscle and Electromyographic Sig-

Figure 2.1: Voluntary Contraction [2]

where n is the number of muscle fibers in the j th MU of a contracting muscle,

Figure 2.2: Components of a Motor Unit [3]

where N is the number of active MUs, M U P Tj (t) is the MUPT generated by

Figure 2.3: Anatomical and physiological model of an EMG signal [4]

2.3 Quantitative Electromyography

Figure 2.4: Intramuscular EMG signal decomposition [15]

2.4 EMG Signal Decomposition

2. preprocessing including band-pass filtering and thresholding

3. segmentation (MUP detection) by using a sliding window which detects

5. clustering (unsupervised classification)

7. and resolution of superimposed MUPs [16].

2.4.1 Signal Acquisition

patients or test subjects. Surface techniques, in contrast, can detect MUPs in

Obviously, the background noise contaminating the acquired signal has to be

2.4.3 MUP detection

Figure 2.7: Segmentation of the signal into its MUPs

2.4.4 Feature Extraction

Normally, in a pattern recognition system each sample is represented by a set

x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xd ]T , (d ≤ n) (2.4)

• contain the least redundancies (the feature values should be uncorrelated

• be the most powerful in discriminating between different MUs

• and be robust to MUPs variability in a single MUPT [24].

2.4.5 Clustering and Classification

In machine learning and statistics, classification is the problem of assigning a

Clustering may be succeeded by a supervised classification in which MUPs

2.4.6 Resolution of superimposed MUPs

Figure 2.9: Superimposed MUPS

optimal model is sought. Each model which is the summation of different

2.4.7 Evaluation of an EMG decompostion algorithm

Before using a decomposition system, for either clinical or research purposes,

• Simultaneously applying the decomposition algorithm to two signals ac-

3.1 Time Features

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Figure 3.1: Raw time samples of a MUP

and statistical methods in classification accuracy.

exploited to resolve superimposed MUPs and merge similar clusters.

3.2 Morphological Features