These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Integrating heterogeneous classifier ensembles for EMG signal decomposition based on classifier agreement.
    Author: Rasheed S, Stashuk DW, Kamel MS.
    Journal: IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2010 May; 14(3):866-82. PubMed ID: 19171524.
    Abstract:
    In this paper, we present a design methodology for integrating heterogeneous classifier ensembles by employing a diversity-based hybrid classifier fusion approach, whose aggregator module consists of two classifier combiners, to achieve an improved classification performance for motor unit potential classification during electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition. Following the so-called overproduce and choose strategy to classifier ensemble combination, the developed system allows the construction of a large set of base classifiers, and then automatically chooses subsets of classifiers to form candidate classifier ensembles for each combiner. The system exploits kappa statistic diversity measure to design classifier teams through estimating the level of agreement between base classifier outputs. The pool of base classifiers consists of different kinds of classifiers: the adaptive certainty-based, the adaptive fuzzy k -NN, and the adaptive matched template filter classifiers; and utilizes different types of features. Performance of the developed system was evaluated using real and simulated EMG signals, and was compared with the performance of the constituent base classifiers. Across the EMG signal datasets used, the developed system had better average classification performance overall, especially in terms of reducing classification errors. For simulated signals of varying intensity, the developed system had an average correct classification rate CCr of 93.8% and an error rate Er of 2.2% compared to 93.6% and 3.2%, respectively, for the best base classifier in the ensemble. For simulated signals with varying amounts of shape and/or firing pattern variability, the developed system had a CCr of 89.1% with an Er of 4.7% compared to 86.3% and 5.6%, respectively, for the best classifier. For real signals, the developed system had a CCr of 89.4% with an Er of 3.9% compared to 84.6% and 7.1%, respectively, for the best classifier.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]