Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Extensor Digitorum
2
0
-2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Abductor Pollicis Brevis
2
0
-2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Hand grasp
Hand
opening
Position of index finger
100
50
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Time (ms)
Figure 6.11d
EMG-triggeredmotion for stroke subject S4. Top 2 rows are the EMG signals
for ED and APB muscle groups. The bottom row is the position feedback of index finger
movement.
E
x
tensor
D
igitorum
2
0
-2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Abd
u
ctor Po
l
licis Br
e
vis
2
0
-2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Hand grasp
Hand
opening
Position of index finger
100
50
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
x 10
4
Time (ms)
Figure 6.11e
Continuous EMG-driven motion for elderly subject E4. Top 2 rows are the
EMG signals for ED and APB muscle groups. The bottom row is the position feedback of
index finger movement.
subjects. Because some stroke subjects had poor muscle co-ordination control, they
could not open their hands, but rather flexed their fingers (opposite force) during
extension motion. This could be the result of muscle co-contraction and spasticity
where flexion muscles had stronger forces than extension muscles. Therefore, it is
common that stroke subjects had more difficulty in hand opening than hand grasp.
However, healthy elderly subjects did not encounter this problem.
