Wrist torque estimation during simultaneous and continuously changing movements: surface vs. untargeted intramuscular EMG

In this paper, the predictive capability of surface and untargeted intramuscular electromyography (EMG) was compared with respect to wrist-joint torque to quantify which type of measurement better represents joint torque during multiple degrees-of-freedom (DoF) movements for possible application in prosthetic control. Ten able-bodied subjects participated in the study. Surface and intramuscular EMG was recorded concurrently from the right forearm. The subjects were instructed to track continuous contraction profiles using single and combined DoF in two trials. The association between torque and EMG was assessed using an artificial neural network. Results showed a significant difference between the two types of EMG (P < 0.007) for all performance metrics: coefficient of determination (R(2)), Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and root mean square error (RMSE). The performance of surface EMG (R(2) = 0.93 ± 0.03; PCC = 0.98 ± 0.01; RMSE = 8.7 ± 2.1%) was found to be superior compared with intramuscular EMG (R(2) = 0.80 ± 0.07; PCC = 0.93 ± 0.03; RMSE = 14.5 ± 2.9%). The higher values of PCC compared with R(2) indicate that both methods are able to track the torque profile well but have some trouble (particularly intramuscular EMG) in estimating the exact amplitude. The possible cause for the difference, thus the low performance of intramuscular EMG, may be attributed to the very high selectivity of the recordings used in this study.