A comparison of adaptive and notch filtering for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface electromyographic signals

Travis W. Beck, Jason M. Defreitas, Joel T. Cramer, Jeffrey R. Stout

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the monopolar electromyographic (EMG) amplitude versus isometric force relationships from three signal processing methods (raw versus notch filtering versus adaptive filtering). Seventeen healthy subjects (mean SD age = 24.6 4.3 yr) performed incremental isometric muscle actions of the dominant leg extensors in 10% increments from 10% to 100% of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). During each muscle action, a monopolar surface EMG signal was recorded from the vastus lateralis and processed with the three signal processing methods. The linear slope coefficients for the EMG amplitude versus isometric force relationships were equivalent for the three signal processing methods and correlated (r = 0.997-0.999). However, the mean amplitude values for the notch-filtered signals were less than those for the raw and adaptive-filtered signals. Thus, adaptive filtering may be the best method for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface EMG signals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)353-361
Number of pages9
JournalPhysiological Measurement
Volume30
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 27 2009

Fingerprint

Electromagnetic Phenomena
Noise
Signal processing
Adaptive filtering
Muscle
Muscles
Quadriceps Muscle
Leg
Healthy Volunteers

Keywords

  • Amplitude
  • Electromyography
  • Filtering
  • Signal processing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Physiology
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

A comparison of adaptive and notch filtering for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface electromyographic signals. / Beck, Travis W.; Defreitas, Jason M.; Cramer, Joel T.; Stout, Jeffrey R.

In: Physiological Measurement, Vol. 30, No. 4, 27.04.2009, p. 353-361.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0cc86c0755e64f7286abbc146666c26a,
title = "A comparison of adaptive and notch filtering for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface electromyographic signals",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the monopolar electromyographic (EMG) amplitude versus isometric force relationships from three signal processing methods (raw versus notch filtering versus adaptive filtering). Seventeen healthy subjects (mean SD age = 24.6 4.3 yr) performed incremental isometric muscle actions of the dominant leg extensors in 10{\%} increments from 10{\%} to 100{\%} of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). During each muscle action, a monopolar surface EMG signal was recorded from the vastus lateralis and processed with the three signal processing methods. The linear slope coefficients for the EMG amplitude versus isometric force relationships were equivalent for the three signal processing methods and correlated (r = 0.997-0.999). However, the mean amplitude values for the notch-filtered signals were less than those for the raw and adaptive-filtered signals. Thus, adaptive filtering may be the best method for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface EMG signals.",
keywords = "Amplitude, Electromyography, Filtering, Signal processing",
author = "Beck, {Travis W.} and Defreitas, {Jason M.} and Cramer, {Joel T.} and Stout, {Jeffrey R.}",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1088/0967-3334/30/4/001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "353--361",
journal = "Physiological Measurement",
issn = "0967-3334",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of adaptive and notch filtering for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface electromyographic signals

AU - Beck, Travis W.

AU - Defreitas, Jason M.

AU - Cramer, Joel T.

AU - Stout, Jeffrey R.

PY - 2009/4/27

Y1 - 2009/4/27

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the monopolar electromyographic (EMG) amplitude versus isometric force relationships from three signal processing methods (raw versus notch filtering versus adaptive filtering). Seventeen healthy subjects (mean SD age = 24.6 4.3 yr) performed incremental isometric muscle actions of the dominant leg extensors in 10% increments from 10% to 100% of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). During each muscle action, a monopolar surface EMG signal was recorded from the vastus lateralis and processed with the three signal processing methods. The linear slope coefficients for the EMG amplitude versus isometric force relationships were equivalent for the three signal processing methods and correlated (r = 0.997-0.999). However, the mean amplitude values for the notch-filtered signals were less than those for the raw and adaptive-filtered signals. Thus, adaptive filtering may be the best method for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface EMG signals.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the monopolar electromyographic (EMG) amplitude versus isometric force relationships from three signal processing methods (raw versus notch filtering versus adaptive filtering). Seventeen healthy subjects (mean SD age = 24.6 4.3 yr) performed incremental isometric muscle actions of the dominant leg extensors in 10% increments from 10% to 100% of the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). During each muscle action, a monopolar surface EMG signal was recorded from the vastus lateralis and processed with the three signal processing methods. The linear slope coefficients for the EMG amplitude versus isometric force relationships were equivalent for the three signal processing methods and correlated (r = 0.997-0.999). However, the mean amplitude values for the notch-filtered signals were less than those for the raw and adaptive-filtered signals. Thus, adaptive filtering may be the best method for removing electromagnetic noise from monopolar surface EMG signals.

KW - Amplitude

KW - Electromyography

KW - Filtering

KW - Signal processing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65249127676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65249127676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/0967-3334/30/4/001

DO - 10.1088/0967-3334/30/4/001

M3 - Article

C2 - 19242048

AN - SCOPUS:65249127676

VL - 30

SP - 353

EP - 361

JO - Physiological Measurement

JF - Physiological Measurement

SN - 0967-3334

IS - 4

ER -