Removing ECG contamination from EMG recordings: A comparison of ICA-based and other filtering procedures

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 485-493

  Willigenburg, Nienke W ^a   Daffertshofer, Andreas ^a   Kingma, Idsart ^a   van Dieën, Jaap H ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Artifact removal; Decontamination; Electrocardiogram; Electromyography; Independent component analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTAMINATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; ELECTRODE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDEPENDENT COMPONENT ANALYSIS; MOTOR UNIT POTENTIAL; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; POWER SPECTRUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QRS COMPLEX; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84861694046     PISSN: 10506411     EISSN: 18735711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Aminian K., Ruffieux C., Robert P. Filtering by adaptive sampling (FAS). Med Biol Eng Comput 1988, 26(6):658-662.
2. Bruns A. Fourier-, Hilbert- and wavelet-based signal analysis: are they really different approaches?. J Neurosci Methods 2004, 137(2):321-332.
3. Butler H.L., Newell R., Hubley-Kozey C.L., Kozey J.W. The interpretation of abdominal wall muscle recruitment strategies change when the electrocardiogram (ECG) is removed from the electromyogram (EMG). J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009, 19(2):e102-e113.
4. Drake J.D.M., Callaghan J.P. Elimination of electrocardiogram contamination from electromyogram signals: an evaluation of currently used removal techniques. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2006, 16(2):175-187.
5. Hermens H.J., Freriks B., Disselhorst-Klug C., Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000, 10(5):361-374.
6. Hof A.L. A simple method to remove ECG artifacts from trunk muscle EMG signals. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009, 19(6):e554-e555.
7. Hyvärinen A., Oja E. Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Netw 2000, 13(4-5):411-430.
8. Jutten C., Hérault J. Blind separation of sources, part I: an adaptive algorithm based on neuromimetic architecture. Signal Process 1991, 24(1):1-10.
9. Mak J.N.F., Hu Y., Luk K.D.K. An automated ECG-artifact removal method for trunk muscle surface EMG recordings. Med Eng Phys 2010, 32(8):840-848.
10. Makeig S., Jung T.P., Bell A.J., Sejnowski T.J. Independent component analysis of electroencephalographic data. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 1996, 8:145-151.
11. Marque C., Bisch C., Dantas R., Elayoubi S., Brosse V., Perot C. Adaptive filtering for ECG rejection from surface EMG recordings. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2005, 15(3):310-315.
12. Redfern M.S., Hughes R.E., Chaffin D.B. High-pass filtering to remove electrocardiographic interference from torso EMG recordings. Clin Biomech 1993, 8(1):44-48.
13. Von Tscharner V., Eskofier B., Federolf P. Removal of the electrocardiogram signal from surface EMG recordings using non-linearly scaled wavelets. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011, 21(4):683-688.
14. Willigenburg N.W., Kingma I., van Dieën J.H. How is precision regulated in maintaining trunk posture?. Exp Brain Res 2010, 203(1):39-49.