Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) without requiring any
proprietary software. These features make it well
suited for our in-home exercise application, whereas
the other high performance EMG systems are better
suited for research applications or patient assessment
in a clinical setting but not practical for our applica-
tion of in-home exercise monitoring.
While the Dynofit Flexdot sensors were more
practical and were the only sufficiently practical EMG
wireless sensors of which we were aware, we also
wanted to test the performance of the EMG sensors
relative to one of the top-of-the-line wireless EMG
commercial systems. We selected the Delsys Trigno
to which to compare the Flexdot.
A Flexdot was adhered to the muscle belly of the
right bicep; a Trigno sensor was adhered to the muscle
belly as well, adjacent to the Flexdot. EMG was ac-
quired from both systems for 60 seconds during bicep
curl exercises and isometric contractions. The EMG
envelope was obtained by full-wave rectifying the raw
EMG, and then applying a moving average filter with
a rectangular window of 100ms. Figure 8 illustrates
that the envelope was appropriately obtained from the
raw EMG. Both envelope amplitudes were normal-
ized to range between 0 and 1.
Figure 8: EMG envelope superimposed on the raw EMG
acquired from the Trigno sensor.
The envelope obtained from each of the sensors
were compared, as shown in Fig. 4. While the Flexdot
captured each muscle activation and showed temporal
accuracy, the amplitude of muscle activation some-
times exceeded that of the Delsys Trigno in this ap-
plication. Factors contributing to the amplitude dif-
ferences may include the differences in the location of
the sensors on a single muscle, spacing of electrodes
on the devices, size and the conductivity of the pads
used to adhere the device to the skin above the mus-
cle. These factors were not likely to explain the dif-
ferences, however, given that these amplitude changes
were observed for a given subject within the same
recording session. What appeared to be more likely
the case is that adaptive filtering is being applied to
maximize use of the dynamic range on the amplitude
scale, such that the normalization of relative ampli-
tude is adjusted over time. Switching to non-adaptive
normalization is simply a matter of adjusting the post-
processing in firmware.
In order to quantify a direct comparison between
the Flexdot-based and Trigno-based EMG activity,
the Flexdot data was first upsampled, since the for-
mer was acquired at 64Hz , and the latter at 2000Hz.
We then computed the RMS difference between the
two normalized envelopes, and obtained an RMS er-
ror of 0.27. Since the amplitudes are normalized, we
represent the RMS difference as 27% of the amplitude
range. As indicated above, this difference can be at-
tributed to the post-processing methods implemented
in firmware.
Figure 9: Comparison of EMG envelope acquired from the
Dynofit Flexdot by the DREAM app and the EMG envelope
obtained from Delsys Trigno.
To help confirm that the differences were more
likely due to differences in post-processing schema
than to physical characteristics, such as size and lo-
cation of the electrodes, we conducted another test.
This time, the subject performed bicep curls with elas-
tic arm bands (TheraBand, Akron, OH) at 3 levels of
increasing resistance. Recordings were taken from a
Trigno sensor placed on the left arm slightly proximal
to the center of the muscle belly, and a Flexdot sensor
placed just distal to the Trigno sensor, such that they
both overlapped with the center of the muscle belly.
On the right arm, we had the converse placement of
sensors, as seen in Fig. 10.
Figure 10: Placement of wireless EMG sensors. Left arm:
Trigno sensor placed more proximally, Flexdot sensor more
distally. Right arm: Flexdot sensor placed more proximally,
Trigno more distally.
Five bicep curls were conducted at each resistance
level. To increase the resistance level, we merely
shortened the theraband to fixed lengths (of 80, 60,
and 40 cm). The resulting EMG envelopes are shown
in Fig. 11 for the left arm, and Fig. 12 for the right
arm.
Wheelchair Exercise Monitor Development Platform - An Application for Wireless EMG Sensors
71