Submitted:
12 January 2023
Posted:
23 January 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Sonomyography (SMG)
3.1. Ultrasound modes used in SMG

3.2. Muscle location and probe fixation
3.3. Feature extraction algotithm
3.4. Artificial intelligence in classification
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Dijk L, van der Sluis CK, van Dijk HW, Bongers RM. Task-oriented gaming for transfer to prosthesis use. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2015;24(12):1384-94. [CrossRef]
- Liu H, Dong W, Li Y, Li F, Geng J, Zhu M, et al. An epidermal semg tattoo-like patch as a new human–machine interface for patients with loss of voice. Microsystems & nanoengineering. 2020;6(1):1-13. [CrossRef]
- Jiang N, Dosen S, Muller K-R, Farina D. Myoelectric control of artificial limbs—is there a need to change focus?[in the spotlight]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 2012;29(5):152-0. [CrossRef]
- Nazari V, Pouladian M, Zheng Y-P, Alam M. A compact and lightweight rehabilitative exoskeleton to restore grasping functions for people with hand paralysis. Sensors. 2021;21(20):6900. [CrossRef]
- Nazari V, Pouladian M, Zheng Y-P, Alam M. Compact design of a lightweight rehabilitative exoskeleton for restoring grasping function in patients with hand paralysis. 2021.
- Zhang Y, Yu C, Shi Y, editors. Designing autonomous driving hmi system: Interaction need insight and design tool study. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; 2018: Springer.
- Young SN, Peschel JM. Review of human–machine interfaces for small unmanned systems with robotic manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems. 2020;50(2):131-43. [CrossRef]
- Wilde M, Chan M, Kish B, editors. Predictive human-machine interface for teleoperation of air and space vehicles over time delay. 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference; 2020: IEEE.
- Morra L, Lamberti F, Pratticó FG, La Rosa S, Montuschi P. Building trust in autonomous vehicles: Role of virtual reality driving simulators in hmi design. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 2019;68(10):9438-50. [CrossRef]
- Bortole M, Venkatakrishnan A, Zhu F, Moreno JC, Francisco GE, Pons JL, et al. The h2 robotic exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation after stroke: Early findings from a clinical study. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2015;12(1):1-14. [CrossRef]
- Pehlivan AU, Losey DP, O'Malley MK. Minimal assist-as-needed controller for upper limb robotic rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 2015;32(1):113-24. [CrossRef]
- Zhu C, Luo L, Mai J, Wang Q. Recognizing continuous multiple degrees of freedom foot movements with inertial sensors. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2022;30:431-40. [CrossRef]
- Russell C, Roche AD, Chakrabarty S. Peripheral nerve bionic interface: A review of electrodes. International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications. 2019;3(1):11-8. [CrossRef]
- Yildiz KA, Shin AY, Kaufman KR. Interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of a neuroprosthetic limb: A review. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2020;17(1):1-19. [CrossRef]
- Taylor CR, Srinivasan S, Yeon SH, O’Donnell M, Roberts T, Herr HM. Magnetomicrometry. Science Robotics. 2021;6(57):eabg0656. [CrossRef]
- Ng KH, Nazari V, Alam M. Can prosthetic hands mimic a healthy human hand? Prosthesis. 2021;3(1):11-23. [CrossRef]
- Ortenzi V, Tarantino S, Castellini C, Cipriani C, editors. Ultrasound imaging for hand prosthesis control: A comparative study of features and classification methods. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR); 2015: IEEE. [CrossRef]
- Guo J-Y, Zheng Y-P, Kenney LP, Bowen A, Howard D, Canderle JJ. A comparative evaluation of sonomyography, electromyography, force, and wrist angle in a discrete tracking task. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2011;37(6):884-91. [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro J, Mota F, Cavalcante T, Nogueira I, Gondim V, Albuquerque V, et al. Analysis of man-machine interfaces in upper-limb prosthesis: A review. Robotics. 2019;8(1):16. [CrossRef]
- Haque M, Promon SK. Neural implants: A review of current trends and future perspectives. 2022.
- Kuiken TA, Dumanian G, Lipschutz RD, Miller L, Stubblefield K. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2004;28(3):245-53. [CrossRef]
- Miller LA, Lipschutz RD, Stubblefield KA, Lock BA, Huang H, Williams III TW, et al. Control of a six degree of freedom prosthetic arm after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2008;89(11):2057-65. [CrossRef]
- Wadikar D, Kumari N, Bhat R, Shirodkar V. Book recommendation platform using deep learning. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology IRJET:. 2020:6764-70.
- Memberg WD, Stage TG, Kirsch RF. A fully implanted intramuscular bipolar myoelectric signal recording electrode. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2014;17(8):794-9. [CrossRef]
- Hazubski S, Hoppe H, Otte A. Non-contact visual control of personalized hand prostheses/exoskeletons by tracking using augmented reality glasses. 3D Printing in Medicine. 2020;6(1):1-3. [CrossRef]
- Johansen D, Cipriani C, Popović DB, Struijk LN. Control of a robotic hand using a tongue control system—a prosthesis application. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2016;63(7):1368-76. [CrossRef]
- Otte A. Invasive versus non-invasive neuroprosthetics of the upper limb: Which way to go? : Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2020. p. 237-9.
- Fonseca L, Tigra W, Navarro B, Guiraud D, Fattal C, Bó A, et al. Assisted grasping in individuals with tetraplegia: Improving control through residual muscle contraction and movement. Sensors. 2019;19(20):4532. [CrossRef]
- Fang C, He B, Wang Y, Cao J, Gao S. Emg-centered multisensory based technologies for pattern recognition in rehabilitation: State of the art and challenges. Biosensors. 2020;10(8):85. [CrossRef]
- Briouza S, Gritli H, Khraief N, Belghith S, Singh D, editors. A brief overview on machine learning in rehabilitation of the human arm via an exoskeleton robot. 2021 International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry (ICDABI); 2021: IEEE.
- Zhang S, Li Y, Zhang S, Shahabi F, Xia S, Deng Y, et al. Deep learning in human activity recognition with wearable sensors: A review on advances. Sensors. 2022;22(4):1476. [CrossRef]
- Zadok D, Salzman O, Wolf A, Bronstein AM. Towards predicting fine finger motions from ultrasound images via kinematic representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:220205204. 2022.
- Yan J, Yang X, Sun X, Chen Z, Liu H. A lightweight ultrasound probe for wearable human–machine interfaces. IEEE Sensors Journal. 2019;19(14):5895-903. [CrossRef]
- Zheng Y-P, Chan M, Shi J, Chen X, Huang Q-H. Sonomyography: Monitoring morphological changes of forearm muscles in actions with the feasibility for the control of powered prosthesis. Medical engineering & physics. 2006;28(5):405-15. [CrossRef]
- Li J, Zhu K, Pan L. Wrist and finger motion recognition via m-mode ultrasound signal: A feasibility study. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control. 2022;71:103112. [CrossRef]
- Dhawan AS, Mukherjee B, Patwardhan S, Akhlaghi N, Diao G, Levay G, et al. Proprioceptive sonomyographic control: A novel method for intuitive and proportional control of multiple degrees-of-freedom for individuals with upper extremity limb loss. Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):1-15. [CrossRef]
- He J, Luo H, Jia J, Yeow JT, Jiang N. Wrist and finger gesture recognition with single-element ultrasound signals: A comparison with single-channel surface electromyogram. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2018;66(5):1277-84. [CrossRef]
- Begovic H, Zhou G-Q, Li T, Wang Y, Zheng Y-P. Detection of the electromechanical delay and its components during voluntary isometric contraction of the quadriceps femoris muscle. Frontiers in physiology. 2014;5:494. [CrossRef]
- Dieterich AV, Botter A, Vieira TM, Peolsson A, Petzke F, Davey P, et al. Spatial variation and inconsistency between estimates of onset of muscle activation from emg and ultrasound. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1-11. [CrossRef]
- Wentink E, Schut V, Prinsen E, Rietman JS, Veltink PH. Detection of the onset of gait initiation using kinematic sensors and emg in transfemoral amputees. Gait & posture. 2014;39(1):391-6. [CrossRef]
- Lopata RG, van Dijk JP, Pillen S, Nillesen MM, Maas H, Thijssen JM, et al. Dynamic imaging of skeletal muscle contraction in three orthogonal directions. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2010;109(3):906-15. [CrossRef]
- Jahanandish MH, Fey NP, Hoyt K. Lower limb motion estimation using ultrasound imaging: A framework for assistive device control. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2019;23(6):2505-14. [CrossRef]
- Guo J-Y, Zheng Y-P, Huang Q-H, Chen X. Dynamic monitoring of forearm muscles using one-dimensional sonomyography system. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development. 2008;45(1). [CrossRef]
- Guo J-Y, Zheng Y-P, Huang Q-H, Chen X, He J-F, Chan HL-W. Performances of one-dimensional sonomyography and surface electromyography in tracking guided patterns of wrist extension. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2009;35(6):894-902. [CrossRef]
- Guo J. One-dimensional sonomyography (smg) for skeletal muscle assessment and prosthetic control. 2010.
- Chen X, Zheng Y-P, Guo J-Y, Shi J. Sonomyography (smg) control for powered prosthetic hand: A study with normal subjects. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2010;36(7):1076-88. [CrossRef]
- Guo J-Y, Zheng Y-P, Xie H-B, Koo TK. Towards the application of one-dimensional sonomyography for powered upper-limb prosthetic control using machine learning models. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2013;37(1):43-9. [CrossRef]
- Yang X, Sun X, Zhou D, Li Y, Liu H. Towards wearable a-mode ultrasound sensing for real-time finger motion recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2018;26(6):1199-208. [CrossRef]
- Szabo TL. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging: Inside out: Academic press; 2004.
- Yang X, Yan J, Fang Y, Zhou D, Liu H. Simultaneous prediction of wrist/hand motion via wearable ultrasound sensing. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2020;28(4):970-7. [CrossRef]
- Engdahl S, Mukherjee B, Akhlaghi N, Dhawan A, Bashatah A, Patwardhan S, et al., editors. A novel method for achieving dexterous, proportional prosthetic control using sonomyography. MEC20 Symposium; 2020.
- Shi J, Chang Q, Zheng Y-P. Feasibility of controlling prosthetic hand using sonomyography signal in real time: Preliminary study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development. 2010;47(2). [CrossRef]
- Shi J, Guo J-Y, Hu S-X, Zheng Y-P. Recognition of finger flexion motion from ultrasound image: A feasibility study. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 2012;38(10):1695-704. [CrossRef]
- Akhlaghi N, Baker CA, Lahlou M, Zafar H, Murthy KG, Rangwala HS, et al. Real-time classification of hand motions using ultrasound imaging of forearm muscles. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2015;63(8):1687-98. [CrossRef]
- McIntosh J, Marzo A, Fraser M, Phillips C, editors. Echoflex: Hand gesture recognition using ultrasound imaging. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2017.
- Akhlaghi N, Dhawan A, Khan AA, Mukherjee B, Diao G, Truong C, et al. Sparsity analysis of a sonomyographic muscle–computer interface. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2019;67(3):688-96. [CrossRef]
- Fernandes AJ, Ono Y, Ukwatta E. Evaluation of finger flexion classification at reduced lateral spatial resolutions of ultrasound. IEEE Access. 2021;9:24105-18. [CrossRef]
- Froeling M, Nederveen AJ, Heijtel DF, Lataster A, Bos C, Nicolay K, et al. Diffusion-tensor mri reveals the complex muscle architecture of the human forearm. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2012;36(1):237-48. [CrossRef]
- Castellini C, Passig G, editors. Ultrasound image features of the wrist are linearly related to finger positions. 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2011: IEEE.
- Castellini C, Passig G, Zarka E. Using ultrasound images of the forearm to predict finger positions. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2012;20(6):788-97. [CrossRef]
- Huang Y, Yang X, Li Y, Zhou D, He K, Liu H. Ultrasound-based sensing models for finger motion classification. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2017;22(5):1395-405. [CrossRef]
- Zhou Y, Zheng Y-P. Sonomyography: Dynamic and functional assessment of muscle using ultrasound imaging: Springer Nature; 2021.
- Wang C, Chen X, Wang L, Makihata M, Liu H-C, Zhou T, et al. Bioadhesive ultrasound for long-term continuous imaging of diverse organs. Science. 2022;377(6605):517-23. [CrossRef]



| Authors. | Year | Ultrasound Mode | Feature extraction method | Machine learning algorithm | Subjects | Location | Targeted muscles | Probe mounting position | Fixation methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng et al. [34] | 2006 | B-Mode | N/A | N/A | 6 healthy and 3 amputee volunteers | Forearm | ECR | Posterior | N/A | The normal participants had a ratio of 7.2±3.7% between wrist angle and forearm muscle percentage distortion. This ratio exhibited an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.868 between the three times it was tested. |
| Guo et al. [43] | 2008 | A-Mode | N/A | N/A | 9 healthy participants | Forearm | ECR | NA | Custom-maid holder | A mean correlation value of r = 0.91 for nine individuals was found based on the findings of a linear regression study linking muscle deformation to wrist extension angle. A correlation between wrist angle and muscle distortion was also investigated. The total mean ratio of deformation to angle was 0.130%/°. |
| Guo et al. [44] | 2009 | A-Mode | N/A | N/A | 16 healthy right-handed participants | Forearm | ECR | NA | Custom-designed holder | The root mean square tracking errors between SMG and EMG were measured, and the results showed that the SMG had a lower error in comparison with EMG. The mean RMS tracking error of SMG and EMG under three different waveform patterns ranged between 17-18.9 and 24.7-30.3 respectively. |
| Chen et al. [46] | 2010 | A-Mode | N/A | N/A | 9 right-handed healthy individuals | Forearm | ECR | NA | Custom-designed holder | SMG control's mean RMS tracking errors were 12.8% & 3.2% and 14.8% & 4.6% for sinusoid and square tracks, respectively, at various movement speeds. |
| Shi et al. [52] | 2010 | B-Mode | N/A | N/A | 7 healthy participants | Forearm | ECR | NA | Custom-made bracket | There was excellent execution efficiency for the TDL algorithm, with and without streaming single-instruction multiple-data extensions, with a mean correlation coefficient of about 0.99. In this technique, the mean standard root-mean-square error was less than 0.75%, and the mean relative root-mean-square was less than 8.0% when compared to the cross-correlation algorithm baseline. |
| Shi et al. [53] | 2012 | B-Mode | Deformation field generated by the demons algorithm | SVM | 6 healthy volunteers | Forearm | ECU, EDM, ED, and EPL | Posterior | Custom-maid holder | A mean F value of 0.94±0.02 indicates a high degree of accuracy and dependability for the proposed approach, which classifies finger flexion movements with an average accuracy of roughly 94%, with the best accuracy for the thumb (97%) and the lowest accuracy for the ring finger (92%). |
| Guo et al. [47] | 2013 | A-Mode | N/A | SVM, RBFANN and BP ANN | 9 healthy volunteers | Forearm | ECR | NA | N/A | The SVM algorithm, with a CC of around 0.98 and a RMSE of around 13%, had excellent potential in the prediction of wrist angle in comparison with the RBFANN and BP ANN. |
| Ortenzi et al. [17] | 2015 | B-Mode | Regions of Interest gradients and HOG | LDA, Naive Bayes classifier and Decision Trees | 3 able bodied volunteers | Forearm | Extrinsic forearm muscles | Transverse | Custom-made plastic cradle | The LDA classifier had the highest accuracy and could categorize 10 postures/grasps with 80% success, and could classify the functional grasps with varied degrees of grip force with an accuracy of 60%. |
| Akhlaghi et al. [54] | 2015 | B-Mode | Customized image processing | Nearest Neighbor | 6 healthy volunteers | Forearm | FDS, FDP and FPL | Transverse | Custom design cuff | In offline classification, 15 different hand motions with an accuracy of around 91.2% were categorized. However, in real-time control of a virtual prosthetic hand, the accuracy of classification was 92%. |
| McIntosh et al. [55] | 2017 | B-Mode | Optical flow | MLP and SVM | 2 healthy volunteers | Wrist and Forearm | FCR, FDS, FPL, FDP and FCU | Transverse, longitudinal, diagonal, wrist and posterior | 3D printed fixture | Both machine learning algorithms could classify 10 discrete hand gestures with an accuracy of more than 98%. In contrast to SVM, MLP had a minor advantage. |
| Yang et al. [48] | 2018 | A-Mode | Segmentation and linear fitting | LDA and SVM | Eight healthy participants | Forearm | FDP, FPL, EDC, EPL and flexor digitorum sublimis | NA | custom-made armband | Finger movements were classified with an accuracy of around 98%. |
| Akhlaghi et al. [56] | 2019 | B-Mode | N/A | Nearest Neighbor | 5 able bodied subjects | Forearm | FDS, FDP and FPL | Transverse | Custom design cuff | The 5 different hand gestures were categorized with an accuracy of 94.6% with 128 scanlines and 94.5% with 4 scanlines that were evenly spaced. |
| Yang et al. [50] | 2020 | A-Mode | Random Forest technique with the help of the Tree Bagger function | SDA and PCA | 8 healthy volunteers | Forearm | FCU, FCR, FDP, FDS, FPL, APL, EPL, EPB, ECU, ECR and ECD | NA | customized armband | The finger motions and wrist rotation simultaneously using the SDA machine learning algorithm were classified with an accuracy of around 99.89% and 95.2%, respectively. |
| Engdahl et al. [51] | 2020 | A-Mode | N/A | N/A | 5 healthy participants | Forearm | NA | NA | Custom-made wearable band | 9 different finger movements with an accuracy of around 95% were classified. |
| Fernandes et al. [57] | 2021 | B-Mode | DWT and LR | LDA | 5 healthy participants | Forearm | NA | Wrist | N/A | Classification accuracy ranged from 80% to 92% at full resolution. However, at low resolution, the accuracy improved to an average of 87% after using the proposed feature extraction method with discrete wavelet transform, which was considered good enough for classification purposes. |
| Li et al. [35] | 2022 | M-Mode and B-Mode | Linear fitting approach | SVM and BP ANN | 8 healthy participants | Forearm | FCR, FDS, FPL, FDP, ED, EPL and ECU | Transverse | custom-made transducer holder | The accuracy of the SVM classifier to classify 13 motions was 98.83±1.03% and 98.77±1.02% for M-mode and B-mode, respectively. However, the accuracy of the BP ANN classifier was 98.70±0.99% for M-mode and 98.76±0.91% for B-mode. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
