
Citation: Michela Illiano, Luigi Sapio, Ilaria Caiafa, Emilio Chiosi, Annamaria Spina, Silvio Naviglio. Forskolin sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine via Stat3 and Erk1/2 inhibition[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2017, 4(2): 224-240. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2017.2.224
[1] | Ravichandra Madanu, Farhan Rahman, Maysam F. Abbod, Shou-Zen Fan, Jiann-Shing Shieh . Depth of anesthesia prediction via EEG signals using convolutional neural network and ensemble empirical mode decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5047-5068. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021257 |
[2] | Tao Yang, Qicheng Yang, Yibo Zhou, Chuanbiao Wen . Glucose trend prediction model based on improved wavelet transform and gated recurrent unit. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17037-17056. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023760 |
[3] | Konki Sravan Kumar, Daehyun Lee, Ankhzaya Jamsrandoj, Necla Nisa Soylu, Dawoon Jung, Jinwook Kim, Kyung Ryoul Mun . sEMG-based Sarcopenia risk classification using empirical mode decomposition and machine learning algorithms. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 2901-2921. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024129 |
[4] | Viliam Ďuriš, Vladimir I. Semenov, Sergey G. Chumarov . Wavelets and digital filters designed and synthesized in the time and frequency domains. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 3056-3068. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022141 |
[5] | Rakesh Pilkar, Erik M. Bollt, Charles Robinson . Empirical mode decomposition/Hilbert transform analysis of postural responses to small amplitude anterior-posterior sinusoidal translations of varying frequencies. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(4): 1085-1097. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.1085 |
[6] | Xiaoguang Liu, Mingjin Zhang, Jiawei Wang, Xiaodong Wang, Tie Liang, Jun Li, Peng Xiong, Xiuling Liu . Gesture recognition of continuous wavelet transform and deep convolution attention network. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 11139-11154. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023493 |
[7] | Xuyang Xie, Zichun Yang, Lei Zhang, Guoqing Zeng, Xuefeng Wang, Peng Zhang, Guobing Chen . An improved Autogram and MOMEDA method to detect weak compound fault in rolling bearings. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10424-10444. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022488 |
[8] | Lihe Liang, Jinying Cui, Juanjuan Zhao, Yan Qiang, Qianqian Yang . Ultra-short-term forecasting model of power load based on fusion of power spectral density and Morlet wavelet. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 3391-3421. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024150 |
[9] | Huanhai Yang, Shue Liu . A prediction model of aquaculture water quality based on multiscale decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7561-7579. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021374 |
[10] | Yujie Kang, Wenjie Li, Jidong Lv, Ling Zou, Haifeng Shi, Wenjia Liu . Exploring brain dysfunction in IBD: A study of EEG-fMRI source imaging based on empirical mode diagram decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(4): 962-987. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025035 |
The arm is an important part of the human body, and human participation in various social activities is inseparable from the arm. However, war, disease and accidents have caused many people to lose a hand or an entire arm, causing a variety of inconveniences in their lives. As a result, the number of amputees fitted with prosthetic hands or arms has increased over the past years. Therefore, the design and manufacture of a humanoid arm with various functions of human arm and the realization of accurate and stable control of humanoid arm have become the hot spot of rehabilitation medical treatment [1,2].
During the contraction of skeletal muscle, a series of biochemical changes take place inside the muscle fibers, and at the same time, action potentials are generated. All the action potentials generated by muscle fibers are superimposed on the electrodes attached to the skin, which is the surface electromyography (sEMG) signal. Thus, the sEMG signal can be used as a control signal for the humanoid arm. Compared with Electroencephalogram (EEG) signal and invasive sEMG signal, sEMG signal is the best control signal for artificial arm, because it is easy, cheap and harmless to control prosthetic hand [3,4,5,6,7]. Although surface sEMG signal acquisition has non-invasive advantages, it will be interfered by skin impedance, electromagnetic interference, surrounding environment and many other factors due to the direct use of electrodes to collect signals at the corresponding muscle positions. In addition, surface sEMG signal itself is weak, with low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and poor stability. Under ideal experimental conditions, most of the noise can be eliminated. However, human movement is carried out in various unpredictable environments, so the sEMG signals will be mixed with various inevitable noises and artifacts, which will make the control effect of the prosthesis not meet the expectation. Therefore, it is necessary to use an effective algorithm to de-noising the sEMG signals [8,9].
Wavelet transform has become a common method for nonstationary signal processing [10] and exerts a significant effect. The most common denoising method is wavelet threshold method, including hard and soft thresholds [11]. After processing the wavelet coefficients through the hard threshold method, the wavelet coefficients become discontinuous. Therefore, the original signal may oscillate when it is reconstructed using the processed coefficients. The wavelet coefficients after soft threshold processing are however continuous, and hence the deviation between the processed wavelet coefficients and the original ones will affect the similarity between the reconstructed signal and the original one. In the literature [12,13], an improved wavelet threshold function is presented. When two parameters of the threshold function are adjusted, the processed threshold can be adjusted continuously between soft and hard thresholds. Thus, the performance is altered. Srivastava et al. [14] proposed a new wavelet denoising method for selecting the decomposition levels and noise thresholds. Their threshold function is different from the traditional denoising method. The useful signal can also be easily extracted from the signal with a high magnitude of noise. It has been successful for the sEMG signal denoising method based on wavelet on pre-processing stage of movement recognition of the upper and lower limbs [14,15,16]. Raurale et al. [17] proposed a wrist motion recognition system for embedded platforms to control prostheses and gesture devices. Their research promotes real-time control on embedded devices, but the quality of the signal is not considered in the experiment. Mastinu et al. [18] have come up with a way to control a prosthetic hand, but they can only control the movement of the hand, not the entire arm, which is limited
The empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method, which has numerous advantages for nonstationary signal analysis [19,20,21], was first introduced by Huang et al. [22], and the EMD method can be used for sEMG noise reduction. However, the EMD method has a disadvantage, that is, the so-called mode mixing effect. Wu and Huang proposed an ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) algorithm to overcome mode mixing [23,24]. Torres et al. [24] proposed the complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise (CEEMDAN) algorithm to improve EEMD. CEEMDAN obtains IMF modes by calculating the unique residue after adding adaptive white Gaussian noise in every stage of EMD. The CEEMDAN algorithm can effectively overcome the mode-mixing problem and reduce the reconstruction error, which has been studied extensively from various fields [25,26,27]. EMD based method may be used alone for sEMG signal denoising [28,29], e.g., EEMD or CEEMDAN decomposition are applied and then certain part of the IMF with high noise is discarded. In such a process some useful signal components may be lost, especially when the signal contains more sharp components like sEMG signal.
In this study, a novel sEMG signal denoising algorithm is proposed based on the EEMD, an improved wavelet threshold, and the extracted IMF1, which combine the advantages of wavelet and EMD. The methodology is validated through experiments on different sEMG signals, and results show that the random noise in the sEMG signal can be effectively denoised, so as to make prosthetic limb control more accurate, fast and robust.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the proposed new method in detail. In section 3, we discuss the experimental results. In section 4, we draw the conclusion.
The current de-noising algorithm may not completely de-noising or remove some useful signals, which makes it difficult for the control of the prosthesis to meet people's expectations. We propose a new sEMG denoising method based on EEMD and wavelet transform, whose flow diagram is shown in Figure 1. Using the method the noised sEMG signal is first decomposed into several intrinsic mode functions (IMFs), and each IMF is analyzed by the autocorrelation method to determine the high-frequency IMFs containing random noise [30]. Second, the useful signal from IMF1 is extracted by a new processing method based on wavelet transform [13], and the remainder of the IMFs containing random noise is processed using an improved wavelet threshold denoising method [12]. Finally, the processed high-frequency IMFs and low-frequency IMFs are used to reconstruct the denoised sEMG signals.
The steps of the denoising algorithm are as follows:
(1) Decompose the noised sEMG signal using the EEMD method and obtain n IMFs.
(2) Calculate the autocorrelation function of each IMF and their normalization results.
(3) Calculate the variance of each normalized autocorrelation function to measure the noise component of each IMF.
(4) Find the boundary IMF
(5) Process
(6) Reconstruct the original signal,
EMD divides signals into several IMFs and a residual [22], as follows:
s(t)=n∑i=1ci(t)+rn(t) | (2.1) |
The EEMD method is proposed based on EMD and white noise to solve the modal mixing problem of the EMD. The details are shown in Figure 2, where N is the time to add the noise.
The autocorrelation function is used to measure the similarity between signals
Rx(τ)=E[x(t)⋅x(t+τ)]E[x(t)⋅x(t)] | (2.2) |
where
The autocorrelation function diagram of random noise is a sharp pulse. However, the diagram of a noised EMG signal has a certain width. The sEMG signal is decomposed into several IMFs by the EEMD. If the IMF contains more random noise, then the middle part of the autocorrelation function diagram narrows. Therefore, in this study, we determine the noise component of each IMF by the autocorrelation function. Then, we obtain the boundary IMF, which determines the IMFs that should be processed. Finally, we conduct further denoising of the IMF with high noise component.
In traditional signal denoising using the EEMD method, the first IMF is considered the noise. However, it is realized that the first IMF contains certain amount of useful signal [31]. In particular, some peak positions of the signal often have a small component in the first IMF. The sEMG signals often have some abrupt peaks. Therefore, the extraction of useful signals from IMF1 can reduce signal distortion. In this study, a processing method [13] based on wavelet transform is used to extract the useful signal from IMF1. The details are as follows:
(1) Take the
Sj=max(|wj|)∑Nji=1|wj,i| | (2.3) |
where
(2) Select two thresholds
λj,L=μj−κj,Lσj | (2.4) |
λj,H=μj+κj,Hσj | (2.5) |
where
① If
κj,L=max(|wj<0|)−μjσj | (2.6) |
κj,H=max(|wj>0|)−μjσj | (2.7) |
② If
κj,L=(Sr,L−Sj,LSr,L)max(|wj<0|)−μjσj | (2.8) |
κj,H=(Sr,H−Sj,HSr,H)max(|wj>0|)−μjσj | (2.9) |
where
(3) After determining the threshold of each layer, hard thresholding is processed in the following manner:
˜wj,i={0 λj,L≤wj,i≤λj,Hwj,i otherwise | (2.10) |
(4) Reconstruct the wavelet coefficients after hard thresholding to obtain the new IMF1, which is the useful signal component extracted from IMF1.
An improved wavelet threshold denoising method is used to remove the noise from high-frequency IMFs.
When analyzing the original signal using wavelet transform, selecting the appropriate wavelet function is vital. The maximum entropy method is commonly used. First, the signal is decomposed by wavelet transform. Then, the entropy of the wavelet coefficients is calculated. Finally, the wavelet function which obtain the maximum entropy is selected as the optimal wavelet function. The entropy is calculated in the following manner: First, the wavelet coefficient
pj=|wj|/N∑j=1|wj| | (2.11) |
Then, the entropy of the wavelet coefficient is calculated as follows:
En=−N∑i=1pilog pi | (2.12) |
For the EMG signal, through numerous experiments, the use of the sym8 wavelet can often derive the maximum entropy and the best denoising effect. Therefore, we will use the sym8 wavelet as the denoising wavelet basis function in subsequent experiments.
A decomposition level that results in the best denoising effect exists. By testing the white noise characteristics of the obtained wavelet coefficients sequence, we can determine the decomposition level adaptively [32]. The specific process is as follows:
(1) Take one level wavelet transform for the pending signal.
(2) Test the white noise characteristics of the high frequency wavelet coefficients obtained by step (1). If the coefficients belong to white noise, then we continue decompose to obtain the second-level high frequency wavelet coefficients and the white noise characteristics is tested. This process is repeated until the wavelet coefficients of one level do not belong to white noise.
(3) According to Step (2), if Step (2) decomposes n times, then the selected decomposition level is n − 1.
A novel improved two-parameter threshold function [12] is used in this study to overcome the disadvantages of the soft and hard threshold functions. By adjusting two parameters of the threshold function, we can change the denoising performance by adjusting the threshold value through different parameters in different circumstances.
The improved threshold function is defined as follows:
˜wj={wj+λ−λ2β+1 wj<−λsign(wj)α(2β+1)λ2β|dj|2β+1 |wj|≤λwj−λ+λ2β+1 wj>λ | (2.13) |
where
α={1 β \gt 00 β = 0 | (2.14) |
In this experiment, the original sEMG signal was obtained from the standard database, BioPatRec open source platform [33]. The sampling frequency is 2000 Hz, bandwidth at 20–400Hz. The sampling duration is 3–4 s. Part of the signal generated by one motion was selected, and white noise was added to obtain the noised sEMG signal. The experiment was recorded from four bipolar electrodes, distributed on average about a third of the way up the forearm, at a sampling frequency of 2 KHZ and a resolution of 14 bits. The average age of the subjects was 33.9 ± 13 years, and 60% of them were male. Six motion categories (hand opening/closing, wrist flexion and extension, forearm inward and outward rotation) were investigated using four disposable pairs of electrodes, using the same method as offline evaluation. Subjects were visually guided through the biomedical recording user interface. Each movement was repeated three times for three seconds, with the same length of rest between each contraction. The intensity of muscle contraction is required to be around 70–80% of the maximum voluntary contraction, which can be visually verified by the total sEMG strength during muscle contraction.
In this section, first, the sEMG signal produced by the flexor carpi radialis when bending the elbow is selected as the research object. Then, 10 dB Gaussian white noise was added to the sEMG signal to obtain a noised sEMG signal.
The noised sEMG signal is decomposed into several IMFs and one residue by the EEMD method to reduce the noise. Figure 3 shows the noised sEMG signal and the first five IMFs.
The normalized autocorrelation function of each IMF and their variance are calculated. Figure 4 shows the normalized autocorrelation function of the first five IMFs. Table 1 shows the variance of each normalized autocorrelation function. According to a large number of experimental results, the threshold of the variance is set to 0.005. The variance of the first three IMFs’ normalized autocorrelation function are less than 0.005, whereas that of the others are greater than 0.005. From the properties of the autocorrelation function and the variance threshold method, we need a de-noising algorithm to make the original signal undergo EEMD decomposition, so that the variance of the first three IMF components is also less than 0.05. Because of the high noise component of the high frequency IMF will cause a large deviation in the control of the prosthesis.
IMF | IMF1 | IMF2 | IMF3 | IMF4 | IMF5 | IMF6 | IMF7 | IMF8 | IMF9 | IMF10 |
Variance | 0.0006 | 0.0016 | 0.0038 | 0.0145 | 0.0094 | 0.0264 | 0.0359 | 0.0453 | 0.0504 | 0.1694 |
During signal denoising by the traditional EMD or EEMD method, the first IMF is usually regarded as noise and discarded. Indeed, the noise will be eliminated. However, in this manner, the useful signal component in IMF1 is also discarded. After reconstructing the signal, many parts are distorted. If some useful components are treated as noise removal, the details of some people's movements may not be collected, which is one of the reasons why the current de-noising algorithm is not effective in practical application.
The first IMF is shown in Figure 3(b). Clearly, most of IMF1 are random noise, but some are still useful signals. Given that the sEMG signals often have some peaks, some useful components from the mutated peaks exist in IMF1.
A wavelet extraction is used to improve the denoising effect of the sEMG signal, and the useful signal component extracted from IMF1 is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows the denoising effect with IMF1 discarded and IMF1 processed. The denoised sEMG signal and original sEMG signal are part of the complete signal from sampling points 1,000 to 1,400. As shown in Figure 6(a), the denoised sEMG signal obtained using the traditional EEMD method is compared with the original sEMG signal, and some peak parts of the sEMG signal are lost.
On the contrary, Figure 6(b) illustrates that the peak parts of the sEMG signal are not lost when the useful signal component extracted from the IMF1 is added before reconstructing the signal. This allows us to eliminate unwanted noise while preserving the useful details of human motion signals, thus greatly improving the accuracy and robustness of prosthetic control.
The remainder of the high-frequency IMF, IMF2, and IMF3 are processed by the improved wavelet threshold denoising method. Figure 7 shows the original IMF2 and IMF3 and the processed IMF2 and IMF3.
We reconstruct the original signal. Figure 8 shows the original sEMG signal, noised sEMG signal, and denoised sEMG signal.
Figures 9(a) to 9(h) show the denoising results of the noised sEMG signal using different denoising methods. EEMDWT means the proposed new method based on EEMD and wavelet transform. EMDWT means the method based on EMD and wavelet transform. CEEMDAN & WT means the method based on CEEMDAN and wavelet transform.
First, 5, 10, 15, and 20 dB Gaussian white noise were added to the noise-free sEMG signal to illustrate the advantages of the proposed algorithm quantitatively. Then, the traditional method and the proposed improved method are used to denoise the signal. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) and root mean square (RMSE) will be used as the indices of the denoising effect. SNR defines the signal energy with respect to the energy of the error. PSNR is an engineering term for the ratio between the maximum possible power of a signal and the power of corrupting noise that affects the fidelity of its representation. RMSE defines the energy of the error signal during denoising. SNR, PSNR and RMSE are defined as follows:
SNR = 10lg∑Ni=1x2i∑Ni=1(xi−ˆxi)2 | (3.1) |
RMSE=√1NN∑i=1(xi−ˆxi)2 | (3.2) |
PSNR=10log10(MAX2xiMSE)=20⋅log10(MAXxiRMSE) | (3.3) |
where
Table 2 presents the performance indices computed under different noise intensities by various denoising methods. The SNR, PSNR and RMSE values are the average value of ten experiments.
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR24.62 | RMSE2.762 | SNR10.00 | PSNR29.54 | RMSE1.567 | SNR15.00 | PSNR34.42 | RMSE0.894 | SNR20.00 | PSNR39.49 | RMSE0.498 |
Hard threshold | 10.06 | 28.87 | 2.065 | 12.48 | 31.91 | 1.563 | 15.69 | 34.36 | 1.080 | 17.85 | 36.37 | 0.842 |
Soft threshold | 9.182 | 28.39 | 2.284 | 11.76 | 31.25 | 1.697 | 13.70 | 33.60 | 1.358 | 15.65 | 35.53 | 1.085 |
Improved threshold | 10.32 | 29.21 | 2.003 | 14.85 | 32.62 | 1.190 | 18.44 | 35.47 | 0.786 | 21.91 | 37.74 | 0.528 |
EMD | 7.539 | 26.99 | 2.759 | 10.17 | 31.28 | 2.037 | 8.29 | 28.89 | 2.531 | 8.843 | 27.79 | 2.375 |
EMDWT | 10.21 | 28.50 | 2.029 | 14.23 | 33.92 | 1.277 | 17.12 | 36.83 | 0.916 | 19.14 | 39.97 | 0.726 |
EEMD | 7.866 | 28.17 | 2.658 | 9.009 | 30.20 | 2.330 | 9.25 | 27.52 | 2.267 | 8.837 | 27.12 | 2.377 |
EEMDWT | 10.79 | 30.15 | 1.898 | 14.95 | 34.07 | 1.176 | 18.86 | 38.59 | 0.750 | 23.58 | 42.76 | 0.435 |
CEEMDAN | 8.667 | 28.05 | 2.544 | 12.79 | 32.18 | 1.547 | 12.32 | 31.82 | 1.411 | 11.04 | 30.19 | 1.403 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 10.66 | 29.30 | 1.932 | 14.79 | 33.87 | 1.170 | 18.64 | 37.93 | 0.859 | 23.47 | 42.19 | 0.477 |
Table 2 indicates that the improved threshold methods had higher SNR, PSNR and lower RMSE than the traditional threshold methods. In all methods, the proposed new method EEMDWT had the highest SNR, PSNR and lowest RMSE, which illustrates the superiority of the proposed new method over the other methods to denoise the sEMG signal.
In the experiment, we also selected the sEMG signal produced by the flexor carpi radialis when bending the wrist to verify the superiority of the proposed new method for the sEMG signal produced by different motions. The selected sEMG signal was processed. Table 3 shows the performance indices computed under different noise intensities by various denoising methods.
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR19.64 | RMSE2.634 | SNR10.00 | PSNR24.52 | RMSE1.502 | SNR15.00 | PSNR29.36 | RMSE0.860 | SNR20.00 | PSNR34.70 | RMSE0.465 |
Hard threshold | 11.71 | 26.04 | 1.244 | 14.77 | 28.86 | 0.874 | 16.27 | 30.72 | 0.736 | 18.71 | 32.63 | 0.556 |
Soft threshold | 11.69 | 26.14 | 1.246 | 14.63 | 29.08 | 0.889 | 15.97 | 30.41 | 0.762 | 17.79 | 32.23 | 0.618 |
Improved threshold | 11.92 | 26.37 | 1.214 | 16.16 | 29.60 | 0.746 | 17.59 | 31.12 | 0.632 | 23.37 | 33.16 | 0.325 |
EMD | 10.09 | 22.94 | 1.500 | 13.63 | 28.07 | 0.998 | 18.21 | 32.49 | 0.589 | 23.84 | 38.29 | 0.308 |
EMDWT | 11.37 | 25.37 | 1.293 | 15.02 | 30.43 | 0.849 | 18.64 | 33.74 | 0.560 | 24.66 | 38.65 | 0.280 |
EEMD | 11.42 | 23.74 | 1.287 | 14.52 | 28.93 | 0.900 | 19.09 | 33.51 | 0.532 | 24.80 | 39.33 | 0.276 |
EEMDWT | 12.40 | 26.77 | 1.149 | 17.02 | 31.77 | 0.675 | 20.71 | 35.11 | 0.442 | 26.21 | 40.17 | 0.234 |
CEEMDAN | 9.171 | 23.56 | 1.666 | 14.41 | 28.81 | 0.911 | 18.89 | 33.27 | 0.544 | 24.22 | 38.74 | 0.295 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 11.99 | 24.38 | 1.212 | 16.50 | 29.41 | 0.703 | 20.33 | 33.65 | 0.477 | 25.15 | 39.67 | 0.250 |
As shown in Table 3, the proposed new method has the highest SNR, PSNR and lowest RMSE. The denoising effect of the traditional hard and soft wavelet threshold methods is poor. Tables 2 and 3 show the denoising effect of the sEMG signal produced by two motions on the same muscle. We observe that the denoising effect of traditional EMD, EEMD and CEEMDAN are unstable for different sEMG signals. As for CEEMDAN & WT, the performance may sometimes be superb and sometimes poor, leading to a lower average value than EEMDWT. This instability of CEEMDAN & WT makes us choose EEMD in the proposed method.
In the experiment, the sEMG signals produced by the soleus when rotating and lifting the foot were selected to verify the superiority of the proposed new method for sEMG signals produced by different muscles. Tables 4 and 5 show the results. The proposed new method always had a significant denoising effect compared with the other methods.
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR15.85 | RMSE0.854 | SNR10.00 | PSNR20.91 | RMSE0.477 | SNR15.00 | PSNR26.03 | RMSE0.265 | SNR20.00 | PSNR30.75 | RMSE0.154 |
Hard threshold | 11.91 | 22.76 | 0.385 | 14.82 | 25.37 | 0.276 | 16.61 | 27.23 | 0.224 | 20.76 | 29.06 | 0.139 |
Soft threshold | 11.96 | 22.81 | 0.383 | 14.83 | 25.69 | 0.275 | 16.44 | 27.29 | 0.229 | 19.26 | 28.98 | 0.165 |
Improved threshold | 11.97 | 22.82 | 0.383 | 15.19 | 26.04 | 0.264 | 17.16 | 28.01 | 0.211 | 23.10 | 29.78 | 0.106 |
EMD | 8.124 | 18.95 | 0.596 | 13.49 | 24.34 | 0.321 | 18.32 | 29.17 | 0.184 | 23.76 | 34.12 | 0.099 |
EMDWT | 11.01 | 21.50 | 0.427 | 15.01 | 26.58 | 0.270 | 19.84 | 31.13 | 0.155 | 24.22 | 34.70 | 0.093 |
EEMD | 8.73 | 19.60 | 0.555 | 14.44 | 25.37 | 0.288 | 19.39 | 30.31 | 0.163 | 24.44 | 35.10 | 0.091 |
EEMDWT | 12.11 | 22.73 | 0.377 | 17.13 | 28.05 | 0.211 | 21.29 | 32.17 | 0.131 | 25.74 | 36.03 | 0.078 |
CEEMDAN | 8.656 | 19.48 | 0.560 | 13.97 | 25.15 | 0.304 | 19.11 | 29.79 | 0.168 | 23.89 | 34.70 | 0.097 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 12.01 | 20.23 | 0.379 | 16.79 | 25.68 | 0.220 | 20.77 | 30.09 | 0.144 | 24.95 | 35.60 | 0.088 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR14.46 | RMSE0.422 | SNR10.00 | PSNR19.20 | RMSE0.244 | SNR15.00 | PSNR24.50 | RMSE0.133 | SNR20.00 | PSNR29.03 | RMSE0.079 |
Hard threshold | 11.30 | 20.70 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.04 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.58 | 0.051 |
Soft threshold | 11.30 | 20.69 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.03 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.73 | 0.051 |
Improved threshold | 12.70 | 20.59 | 0.175 | 13.76 | 24.95 | 0.155 | 20.89 | 30.28 | 0.068 | 26.58 | 35.63 | 0.035 |
EMD | 8.389 | 17.78 | 0.287 | 13.34 | 22.73 | 0.163 | 18.37 | 27.76 | 0.091 | 24.00 | 32.74 | 0.048 |
EMDWT | 10.48 | 22.19 | 0.226 | 14.90 | 26.56 | 0.136 | 20.49 | 31.87 | 0.071 | 25.59 | 37.20 | 0.040 |
EEMD | 9.359 | 18.73 | 0.257 | 14.15 | 23.52 | 0.148 | 19.59 | 28.90 | 0.079 | 24.73 | 33.66 | 0.044 |
EEMDWT | 13.87 | 23.23 | 0.153 | 16.71 | 27.58 | 0.110 | 22.14 | 32.93 | 0.059 | 27.72 | 37.66 | 0.031 |
CEEMDAN | 9.24 | 18.34 | 0.261 | 14.11 | 23.44 | 0.149 | 19.41 | 28.69 | 0.081 | 23.75 | 33.17 | 0.049 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 13.76 | 22.22 | 0.155 | 15.78 | 27.36 | 0.127 | 20.92 | 32.39 | 0.070 | 27.02 | 36.73 | 0.034 |
In summary, this study aimed to analyze the method of denoising the sEMG signal and propose a new effective method to improve the robustness and accuracy of prosthetic control. As shown in Tables 2 to 5, the improved threshold method always has a better effect than the traditional hard and soft threshold denoising methods. Therefore, in the proposed new method, the improved threshold method is used to remove the noise in the high-frequency IMFs. In the traditional EMD based methods, the denoising effect is unstable. The effect may sometimes be good, but it may sometimes be bad, which depends on the sEMG signal. In three combination methods, EMDWT, EEMDWT and CEEMDAN & WT, the IMFs are processed in the same manner, but the decomposition method is different. The combined method EMDWT based on EMD has a good denoising effect. However, the denoising effect is not good enough because of the drawback of mode mixing. The combined method CEEMDAN & WT based on CEEMDAN also has a good denoising effect. However, the denoising effect is not good enough because of its instability. Therefore, the proposed method selects the EEMD method as the decomposition method, which can overcome mode mixing and have a stable denoising effect. As shown in each table, the proposed methods all have the best denoising effect. The results illustrate that the proposed algorithm can improve the robustness of emg to changing noises. In addition, in the case of low or no noise, there is no defect of information loss, which plays a significant role in promoting the field of prosthetic limb control and medical rehabilitation.
Prosthetic limb control is currently the focus of rehabilitation in the field of medical rehabilitation and the signal to control the prosthesis must be of high quality. Therefore, how to obtain pure EMG signals is an important issue. Since its birth, EMD has been widely used in various fields of signal processing and analysis. However, the modal decomposition method has some shortcomings in practical applications, such as modal aliasing, which greatly hinders its further application in practice. There are two reasons for modal aliasing: on the one hand, it is related to the EMD algorithm itself; on the other hand, the frequency characteristics of the original signal will also affect the decomposition result, and even produce modal aliasing. For example, white noise residuals and false modes after EEMD decomposition, and as the EEMD method becomes more and more widely used, the defects of the EEMD method gradually become prominent. However, EEMD cannot effectively solve the modal aliasing phenomenon, and effective IMF requires manual screening. Other scholars have proposed improved EEMD methods based on the EEMD method, such as SVM-based EEMD improvement methods, complementary generalized empirical mode decomposition (CEEMD) and other auxiliary methods in noise, and complementary set overall empirical mode decomposition (CEEMD) The generalized empirical mode decomposition (ceemdan) of the complete auxiliary noise set restores the integrity of the emd decomposition, but these methods require many iterations, long calculation time, and low decomposition efficiency. In addition to EEMD, wavelet transform plays an important role in non-stationary signal processing. The most commonly used denoising method is wavelet threshold method, including hard threshold method and soft threshold method. The wavelet coefficients become discontinuous after hard thresholding. Therefore, when reconstructing the original signal with the processed wavelet coefficients, oscillations may occur in some places. Although the wavelet coefficients obtained after soft threshold processing are continuous, the deviation between the processed wavelet coefficients and the original coefficients will affect the degree of approximation between the reconstructed signal and the original signal.
In order to solve the problems of existing denoising algorithms, this paper proposes a new sEMG signal denoising algorithm based on EEMD. This algorithm is an improved wavelet threshold algorithm and extracts useful signal components from IMF1. The noisy surface EMG signal is decomposed into a series of internal mode functions. Through autocorrelation analysis, the high frequency internal mode function containing random noise is determined. A new method is used to process the first IMF with the most random noise to extract useful signal components. For other internal model functions containing random noise, an improved wavelet threshold is used to denoise. Finally, reconstruct the remaining internal mode functions to obtain clean surface EMG signals. The surface EMG signals generated by the flexor carpi radialis and soleus muscles during elbow flexion, wrist rotation, and foot lift were verified experimentally. As mentioned earlier, we use SNR, PSNR and RMSE as quality estimators for denoising. The results show that the method has high signal-to-noise ratio, peak signal-to-noise ratio and the lowest root mean square error, and can stably remove random noise in surface EMG signals, and the effect is significant. This work lays the foundation for the subsequent study of EMG signal feature extraction and action recognition, and ensures its usability in prosthetic control.
In this study, we found that CEEMDAN & WT can sometimes achieve good results, but its performance lacks stability. Making this method feasible will be one of our future research directions. If this method can achieve a stable denoising effect, it will greatly promote the process of prosthesis control and medical rehabilitation. At present, the algorithm has a good denoising effect under the interference of white noise, but no experiments have been carried out on motion artifact noise and electromagnetic interference noise. In future work, we will try to extract these noise signals and further verify the effect of our algorithm.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61971169, and 60903084), and Jinhua Science and Technology Bureau (Nos. 2019–3–020 and 2020–3–036).
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
[1] |
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66: 7-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332
![]() |
[2] |
Ying H, Dey P, Yao W, et al. (2016) Genetics and biology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Genes Dev 30: 355-385. doi: 10.1101/gad.275776.115
![]() |
[3] |
Rebelo A, Molpeceres J, Rijo P, et al. (2017) Pancreatic Cancer Therapy Review: from classic therapeutic agents to modern nanotechnologies. Curr Drug Metab 18: 346-359. doi: 10.2174/1389200218666170201151135
![]() |
[4] |
Fogel EL, Shahda S, Sandrasegaran K, et al. (2017) A Multidisciplinary Approach to Pancreas Cancer in 2016: A Review. Am J Gastroenterol 112: 537-554. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.610
![]() |
[5] |
Turek M, Krzyczmonik M, Bałczewski P (2016) New hopes in cancer battle - a review of new molecules and treatment strategies. Med Chem 12: 700-719. doi: 10.2174/1573406412666160502153700
![]() |
[6] |
Millimouno FM, Dong J, Yang L, et al. (2014) Targeting apoptosis pathways in cancer and perspectives with natural compounds from mother nature. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 7: 1081-1107. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0136
![]() |
[7] |
Naviglio S, Della Ragione F (2013) Naturally occurring molecules and anticancer combination therapies in the era of personalized medicine and economic crisis. Curr Pharm Des 19: 5325-5326. doi: 10.2174/1381612811319300001
![]() |
[8] |
Shanmugam MK, Lee JH, Chai EZ, et al. (2016) Cancer prevention and therapy through the modulation of transcription factors by bioactive natural compounds. Semin Cancer Biol 40-41: 35-47. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2016.03.005
![]() |
[9] |
Sapio L, Gallo M, Illiano M, et al. (2017) The natural cAMP elevating compound forskolin in cancer therapy: Is it time? J Cell Physiol 232: 922-927. doi: 10.1002/jcp.25650
![]() |
[10] |
Kanne H, Burte NP, Prasanna V, et al. (2015) Extraction and elemental analysis of Coleus forskohlii extract. Pharmacognosy Res 7: 237-241. doi: 10.4103/0974-8490.157966
![]() |
[11] |
Godard MP, Johnson BA, Richmond SR (2005) Body composition and hormonal adaptations associated with forskolin consumption in overweight and obese men. Obes Res 13: 1335-1343. doi: 10.1038/oby.2005.162
![]() |
[12] |
Henderson S, Magu B, Rasmussen C, et al. (2005) Effects of Coleus forskohlii supplementation on body composition and hematological profiles in mildly overweight women. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2: 54-62. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-2-2-54
![]() |
[13] |
Loftus HL, Astell KJ, Mathai M, et al. (2015) Coleus forskohlii Extract Supplementation in Conjunction with a Hypocaloric Diet Reduces the Risk Factors of Metabolic Syndrome in Overweight and Obese Subjects: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 7: 9508-9522. doi: 10.3390/nu7115483
![]() |
[14] |
Beavo JA, Brunton LL (2002) Cyclic nucleotide research -- still expanding after half a century. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3: 710-718. doi: 10.1038/nrm911
![]() |
[15] |
Gancedo JM (2013) Biological roles of cAMP: variations on a theme in the different kingdoms of life. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 88: 645-668. doi: 10.1111/brv.12020
![]() |
[16] |
Pattabiraman DR, Bierie B, Kober KI, et al. (2016) Activation of PKA leads to mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition and loss of tumor-initiating ability. Science 351: aad3680. doi: 10.1126/science.aad3680
![]() |
[17] |
Follin-Arbelet V, Misund K, Hallan Naderi E, et al. (2015) The natural compound forskolin synergizes with dexamethasone to induce cell death in myeloma cells via BIM. Sci Rep 5: 13001. doi: 10.1038/srep13001
![]() |
[18] |
Naviglio S, Di Gesto D, Illiano F, et al. (2010) Leptin potentiates antiproliferative action of cAMP elevation via protein kinase A down-regulation in breast cancer cells. J Cell Physiol 225: 801-809. doi: 10.1002/jcp.22288
![]() |
[19] |
Dong H, Claffey KP, Brocke S, et al. (2015) Inhibition of breast cancer cell migration by activation of cAMP signaling. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152: 17-28. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3445-9
![]() |
[20] |
Park JY, Juhnn YS (2016) cAMP signaling increases histone deacetylase 8 expression by inhibiting JNK-dependent degradation via autophagy and the proteasome system in H1299 lung cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 470: 336-342. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.01.049
![]() |
[21] |
Cristóbal I, Rincón R, Manso R, et al. (2014) Hyperphosphorylation of PP2A in colorectal cancer and the potential therapeutic value showed by its forskolin-induced dephosphorylation and activation. Biochim Biophys Acta 1842: 1823-1829. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.06.032
![]() |
[22] |
Burdyga A, Conant A, Haynes L, et al. (2013) cAMP inhibits migration, ruffling and paxillin accumulation in focal adhesions of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells: effects of PKA and EPAC. Biochim Biophys Acta 1833: 2664-2672. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.06.011
![]() |
[23] |
Quinn SN, Graves SH, Dains-McGahee C, et al. (2017) Adenylyl cyclase 3/adenylyl cyclase-associated protein 1 (CAP1) complex mediates the anti-migratory effect of forskolin in pancreatic cancer cells. Mol Carcinog 56: 1344-1360. doi: 10.1002/mc.22598
![]() |
[24] |
Spina A, Di Maiolo F, Esposito A, et al. (2012) cAMP Elevation Down-Regulates β3 Integrin and Focal Adhesion Kinase and Inhibits Leptin-Induced Migration of MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cells. Biores Open Access 1: 324-332. doi: 10.1089/biores.2012.0270
![]() |
[25] |
Sapio L, Sorvillo L, Illiano M, et al. (2015) Inorganic Phosphate Prevents Erk1/2 and Stat3 Activation and Improves Sensitivity to Doxorubicin of MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cells. Molecules 20: 15910-15928. doi: 10.3390/molecules200915910
![]() |
[26] | Crowley LC, Scott AP, Marfell BJ, et al. (2016) Measuring Cell Death by Propidium Iodide Uptake and Flow Cytometry. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2016: pdb.prot087163. |
[27] |
Thoennissen NH, Iwanski GB, Doan NB, et al. (2009) Cucurbitacin B induces apoptosis by inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway and potentiates antiproliferative effects of gemcitabine on pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Res 69: 5876-5884. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0536
![]() |
[28] |
Zhang Q, Wang H, Ran L, et al. (2016) The preclinical evaluation of TIC10/ONC201 as an anti-pancreatic cancer agent. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 476: 260-266. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.05.106
![]() |
[29] |
Nagaraju GP, Mezina A, Shaib WL, et al. (2016) Targeting the Janus-activated kinase-2-STAT3 signalling pathway in pancreatic cancer using the HSP90 inhibitor ganetespib. Eur J Cancer 52: 109-119. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.10.057
![]() |
[30] | Jung KH, Yan HH, Fang Z, et al. (2014) HS-104, a PI3K inhibitor, enhances the anticancer efficacy of gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer. Int J Oncol 45: 311-321. |
[31] |
Zimmerman NP, Roy I, Hauser AD, et al. (2015) Cyclic AMP regulates the migration and invasion potential of human pancreatic cancer cells. Mol Carcinog 54: 203-215. doi: 10.1002/mc.22091
![]() |
[32] |
Lee BY, Timpson P, Horvath LG, et al. (2015) FAK signaling in human cancer as a target for therapeutics. Pharmacol Ther 146: 132-149. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.10.001
![]() |
[33] |
Canel M, Serrels A, Frame MC, et al. (2013) E-cadherin-integrin crosstalk in cancer invasion and metastasis. J Cell Sci 126: 393-401. doi: 10.1242/jcs.100115
![]() |
[34] |
Lieberman MD, Paty P, Li XK, et al. (1996) Elevation of intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate inhibits the epidermal growth factor signal transduction pathway and cellular growth in pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines. Surgery 120: 354-359. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80309-6
![]() |
[35] |
Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. (1997) Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15: 2403-2413. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.6.2403
![]() |
[36] |
Ellenrieder V, König A, Seufferlein T (2016) Current Standard and Future Perspectives in First- and Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Digestion 94: 44-49. doi: 10.1159/000447739
![]() |
[37] | Moon SU, Kim JW, Sung JH, et al. (2015) p21-Activated Kinase 4 (PAK4) as a Predictive Marker of Gemcitabine Sensitivity in Pancreatic Cancer Cell Lines. Cancer Res Treat 47: 501-508. |
[38] | Sumiyoshi H, Matsushita A, Nakamura Y, et al. (2016) Suppression of STAT5b in pancreatic cancer cells leads to attenuated gemcitabine chemoresistance, adhesion and invasion. Oncol Rep 35: 3216-3226. |
[39] | Miao X, Koch G, Ait-Oudhia S, et al. (2016) Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Cell Cycle Effects for Gemcitabine and Trabectedin Combinations in Pancreatic Cancer Cells. Front Pharmacol 7: 421. |
[40] |
Morgan MA, Parsels LA, Parsels JD, et al. (2005) Role of checkpoint kinase 1 in preventing premature mitosis in response to gemcitabine. Cancer Res 65: 6835-6842. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2246
![]() |
[41] |
Zhang JG, Hong DF, Zhang CW, et al. (2014) Sirtuin 1 facilitates chemoresistance of pancreatic cancer cells by regulating adaptive response to chemotherapy-induced stress. Cancer Sci 105: 445-454. doi: 10.1111/cas.12364
![]() |
[42] |
Pan Y, Zheng M, Zhong L, et al. (2015) A preclinical evaluation of SKLB261, a multikinase inhibitor of EGFR/Src/VEGFR2, as a therapeutic agent against pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 14: 407-418. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0485
![]() |
[43] | Ozaki T, Nakamura M, Ogata T, et al. (2016) Depletion of pro-oncogenic RUNX2 enhances gemcitabine (GEM) sensitivity of p53-mutated pancreatic cancer Panc-1 cells through the induction of pro-apoptotic TAp63. Oncotarget 7: 71937-71950. |
[44] |
Mann KM, Ying H, Juan J, et al. (2016) KRAS-related proteins in pancreatic cancer. Pharmacol Ther 168: 29-42. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.09.003
![]() |
[45] | Wu P, Wu D, Zhao L, et al. (2016) Prognostic role of STAT3 in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 7: 19863-19883. |
[46] |
Singh NS, Bernier M, Wainer IW (2016) Selective GPR55 antagonism reduces chemoresistance in cancer cells. Pharmacol Res 111: 757-766. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.07.013
![]() |
[47] |
He X, Wang J, Wei W, et al. (2016) Hypoxia regulates ABCG2 activity through the activation of ERK1/2/HIF-1α and contributes to chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Biol Ther 17: 188-198. doi: 10.1080/15384047.2016.1139228
![]() |
[48] |
Chai X, Chu H, Yang X, et al. (2015) Metformin Increases Sensitivity of Pancreatic Cancer Cells to Gemcitabine by Reducing CD133+ Cell Populations and Suppressing ERK/P70S6K Signaling. Sci Rep 5: 14404. doi: 10.1038/srep14404
![]() |
[49] |
Vena F, Li Causi E, Rodriguez-Justo M, et al. (2015) The MEK1/2 Inhibitor Pimasertib Enhances Gemcitabine Efficacy in Pancreatic Cancer Models by Altering Ribonucleotide Reductase Subunit-1 (RRM1). Clin Cancer Res 21: 5563-5577. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0485
![]() |
[50] |
Lee J, Han SI, Yun JH, et al. (2015) Quercetin 3-O-glucoside suppresses epidermal growth factor-induced migration by inhibiting EGFR signaling in pancreatic cancer cells. Tumour Biol 36: 9385-9393. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-3682-x
![]() |
[51] |
Wang M, Lu X, Dong X, et al. (2015) pERK1/2 silencing sensitizes pancreatic cancer BXPC-3 cell to gemcitabine-induced apoptosis via regulating Bax and Bcl-2 expression. World J Surg Oncol 13: 66. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0451-7
![]() |
[52] |
Zheng C, Jiao X, Jiang Y, et al. (2013) ERK1/2 activity contributes to gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer cells. J Int Med Res 41: 300-306. doi: 10.1177/0300060512474128
![]() |
[53] |
Tang Y, Liu F, Zheng C, et al. (2012) Knockdown of clusterin sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine chemotherapy by ERK1/2 inactivation. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 31: 73. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-31-73
![]() |
[54] | Venkatasubbarao K, Peterson L, Zhao S, et al. (2013) Inhibiting signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 increases response to gemcitabine and delays progression of pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer 12: 104. |
[55] |
Li L, Leung PS (2014) Use of herbal medicines and natural products: an alternative approach to overcoming the apoptotic resistance of pancreatic cancer. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 53: 224-236. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2014.05.021
![]() |
[56] |
Vendrely V, Peuchant E, Buscail E, et al. (2017) Resveratrol and capsaicin used together as food complements reduce tumor growth and rescue full efficiency of low dose gemcitabine in a pancreatic cancer model. Cancer Lett 390: 91-102. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.01.002
![]() |
[57] | Ren X, Zhao W, Du Y, et al. (2016) Activator protein 1 promotes gemcitabine-induced apoptosis in pancreatic cancer by upregulating its downstream target Bim. Oncol Lett 12: 4732-4738. |
[58] |
Finbloom DS, Larner AC (1995) Regulation of the Jak/STAT signalling pathway. Cell Signal 7: 739-745. doi: 10.1016/0898-6568(95)02004-7
![]() |
[59] | Yuan J, Zhang F, Niu R (2015) Multiple regulation pathways and pivotal biological functions of STAT3 in cancer. Sci Rep 5: 17663. |
[60] |
Li MX, Bi XY, Huang Z, et al. (2015) Prognostic Role of Phospho-STAT3 in Patients with Cancers of the Digestive System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 10: e0127356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127356
![]() |
[61] |
Zulkifli AA, Tan FH, Putoczki TL, et al. (2017) STAT3 signaling mediates tumour resistance to EGFR targeted therapeutics. Mol Cell Endocrinol 451: 15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2017.01.010
![]() |
[62] | Zhao C, Li H, Lin HJ, et al. (2015) Feedback Activation of STAT3 as a Cancer Drug-Resistance Mechanism. Trends Pharmacol Sci 37: 47-61. |
[63] |
Johnston PA, Grandis JR (2011) STAT3 signaling: anticancer strategies and challenges. Mol Interv 11: 18-26. doi: 10.1124/mi.11.1.4
![]() |
[64] |
Furtek SL, Backos DS, Matheson CJ, et al. (2016) Strategies and Approaches of Targeting STAT3 for Cancer Treatment. ACS Chem Biol 11: 308-318. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00945
![]() |
[65] | Furukawa T (2015) Impacts of activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in pancreatic cancer. Front Oncol 5: 23. |
[66] |
Neuzillet C, Hammel P, Tijeras-Raballand A, et al. (2013) Targeting the Ras-ERK pathway in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer Metastasis Rev 32: 147-162. doi: 10.1007/s10555-012-9396-2
![]() |
[67] |
Spina A, Di Maiolo F, Esposito A, et al. (2013) Integrating leptin and cAMP signalling pathways in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 18: 133-144. doi: 10.2741/4092
![]() |
[68] |
Follin-Arbelet V, Torgersen ML, Naderi EH, et al. (2013) Death of multiple myeloma cells induced by cAMP-signaling involves downregulation of Mcl-1 via the JAK/STAT pathway. Cancer Lett 335: 323-331. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.02.042
![]() |
1. | Songsong Li, Ying Yang, Chen Li, Huimin He, Qi Zhang, Siqi Zhao, Research on Signal Processing Technology of Ultrasonic Non‐Destructive Testing Based on EEMD Combined with Wavelet Packet , 2023, 1931-4973, 10.1002/tee.23770 | |
2. | William Bekerman, Madhur Srivastava, Determining Decomposition Levels for Wavelet Denoising Using Sparsity Plot, 2021, 9, 2169-3536, 110582, 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103497 | |
3. | Jianguo Zhang, Man Wang, Bing Jia, Yujie Wang, Study on Optimization of Infrasound Filtering Method for Coal Sample Failure under Load, 2022, 10, 2296-6463, 10.3389/feart.2022.834234 | |
4. | Zhangfeng Zhao, Gaohong Liu, Yueliang Wang, Jiyu Peng, Xin Qiao, Jiang Zhong, Research on Dynamic Measurement Method of Flow Rate in Tea Processing, 2022, 22, 1424-8220, 4294, 10.3390/s22114294 | |
5. | Xiaoqian Tang, Jian Ying, Qiang Zhu, Hangjun Chen, Guoyin Yang, Like Jiang, Hao Cai, Mengting Huang, 2022, Research of noise reduction about sEMG signal for live working based on MEEMD and DFA, 978-1-6654-7732-1, 1, 10.1109/CIYCEE55749.2022.9959026 | |
6. | Marianne Boyer, Laurent Bouyer, Jean-Sébastien Roy, Alexandre Campeau-Lecours, Reducing Noise, Artifacts and Interference in Single-Channel EMG Signals: A Review, 2023, 23, 1424-8220, 2927, 10.3390/s23062927 | |
7. | H. Ashraf, U. Shafiq, Q. Sajjad, A. Waris, O. Gilani, M. Boutaayamou, O. Brüls, Variational mode decomposition for surface and intramuscular EMG signal denoising, 2023, 82, 17468094, 104560, 10.1016/j.bspc.2022.104560 | |
8. | Jing Li, Junhong Wang, Ting Wang, Wanzeng Kong, Xugang Xi, Quantification of body ownership awareness induced by the visual movement illusion of the lower limbs: a study of electroencephalogram and surface electromyography, 2023, 0140-0118, 10.1007/s11517-022-02744-4 | |
9. | Xugang Xi, Jinsuo Ding, Junhong Wang, Yun-Bo Zhao, Ting Wang, Wanzeng Kong, Jingqi Li, Analysis of Functional Corticomuscular Coupling Based on Multiscale Transfer Spectral Entropy, 2022, 26, 2168-2194, 5085, 10.1109/JBHI.2022.3193984 | |
10. | Jinfeng Zhao, Jianxin Liu, Danilo Pelusi, The Diagnostic Value of Scanning in the Injury of Triceps Crus of Volleyball Players, 2022, 2022, 1932-8745, 1, 10.1155/2022/2203065 | |
11. | Jin Su Kim, Min-Gu Kim, Jae Myung Kim, Sung Bum Pan, Multi-Stream CNN-Based Personal Recognition Method Using Surface Electromyogram for 5G Security, 2022, 72, 1546-2226, 2997, 10.32604/cmc.2022.026572 | |
12. | Lu Sun, Xiuling Shan, Qihu Dong, Chong Wu, Mei Shan, Hongxia Guo, Rui Lu, Osamah Ibrahim Khalaf, Ultrasonic Elastography Combined with Human Papilloma Virus Detection Based on Intelligent Denoising Algorithm in Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia, 2021, 2021, 1748-6718, 1, 10.1155/2021/8066133 | |
13. | Noureddine Messaoudi, Samia Belkacem, Raïs El'hadi Bekka, Ability of spatial filters to distinguish between two MUAPs generated from MUs with different locations, sizes and fibers pennation, 2023, 18, 1748-0221, P03041, 10.1088/1748-0221/18/03/P03041 | |
14. | Yuexing Gu, Tongyou Liu, Yuanjing Xu, Yuling Shen, Hang Ren, Jinwu Wang, 2022, A Sample Data Augmentation Method for EMG Gesture Recognition, 979-8-3503-9916-5, 442, 10.1109/IC2ECS57645.2022.10087946 | |
15. | Xian Hua, Jing Li, Ting Wang, Junhong Wang, Shaojun Pi, Hangcheng Li, Xugang Xi, Evaluation of movement functional rehabilitation after stroke: A study via graph theory and corticomuscular coupling as potential biomarker, 2023, 20, 1551-0018, 10530, 10.3934/mbe.2023465 | |
16. | Pratap Kumar Koppolu, Krishnan Chemmangat, Automatic selection of IMFs to denoise the sEMG signals using EMD, 2023, 73, 10506411, 102834, 10.1016/j.jelekin.2023.102834 | |
17. | Daniele Esposito, Jessica Centracchio, Paolo Bifulco, Emilio Andreozzi, A smart approach to EMG envelope extraction and powerful denoising for human–machine interfaces, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-33319-4 | |
18. | Youbin Huang, Jian Mao, Kai Huang, Jinming Liu, Ni Tang, Electromagnetic signal denoising model based on stacked ET layers structure, 2025, 242, 02632241, 115796, 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.115796 | |
19. | Yuyan Zhang, Zhixia Yang, Xiaoli Du, Xiaoyuan Luo, A New Method for Denoising Underwater Acoustic Signals Based on EEMD, Correlation Coefficient, Permutation Entropy, and Wavelet Threshold Denoising, 2024, 23, 1671-9433, 222, 10.1007/s11804-024-00386-6 | |
20. | Ali Zakaria Messaoui, Laurent Peyrodie, Mohamed Amine Alouane, François Gionco, Mohamed Guiatni, 2024, Deep Learning-Based Efficient Human Joint Movement Prediction using Surface Electromyography Data, 979-8-3503-6102-5, 1, 10.1109/ICCAD60883.2024.10553805 | |
21. | Guo Hua-Ling, Zhenh Bin, Liu Li-Ping, Liu Hui, Study on Denoising Method of Surface Defect Signal of Rail Based on CEEMD and Wavelet Soft Threshold, 2023, 69, 1063-7710, 929, 10.1134/S1063771022600504 | |
22. | Junpo Liu, Alexis Achurra, Chuang Zhang, Alan Bury, Xinjian Wang, A long short term memory network-based, global navigation satellite system/inertial navigation system for unmanned surface vessels, 2024, 23, 2046-4177, 316, 10.1080/20464177.2024.2334029 | |
23. | Chen Zhang, Zijian Zhou, Shuren Zhou, 2023, sEMG Signal Denoising Based on Variational Mode Decomposition and Wavelet Thresholding, 979-8-3503-3603-0, 913, 10.1109/ICMSP58539.2023.10171095 | |
24. | Kuangxi Su, Chengli Zheng, Xing Yu, Portfolio allocation with CEEMDAN denoising algorithm, 2023, 27, 1432-7643, 15955, 10.1007/s00500-023-08883-6 | |
25. | Yubo Sun, Zhenhui Guo, Yuxin Feng, Ningbo Yu, 2023, A Novel Surface Electromyography Signals Denoising Method for Gait Phase Classification, 978-988-75815-4-3, 3465, 10.23919/CCC58697.2023.10241069 | |
26. | Xudong Chen, Hongdi Guo, Shaowei Hu, Chongshi Gu, Na Lu, Jinjun Guo, Xing Liu, Tzu-Kang Lin, Dynamic Cluster Zoning of Arch Dam Deformation Considering Changing Working Conditions, 2024, 2024, 1545-2255, 10.1155/2024/8813251 | |
27. | Han Zhao, Zhenwei Wang, Yu Yang, Ziyu Zhang, 2024, FastICA-based noise reduction algorithm for surface electromyographic signals, 979-8-3503-9437-5, 1290, 10.1109/NNICE61279.2024.10498893 | |
28. | Xiaoxiang Gao, Xiangjun Chen, Muyang Lin, Wentong Yue, Hongjie Hu, Siyu Qin, Fangao Zhang, Zhiyuan Lou, Lu Yin, Hao Huang, Sai Zhou, Yizhou Bian, Xinyi Yang, Yangzhi Zhu, Jing Mu, Xinyu Wang, Geonho Park, Chengchangfeng Lu, Ruotao Wang, Ray S. Wu, Joseph Wang, Jinghong Li, Sheng Xu, A wearable echomyography system based on a single transducer, 2024, 2520-1131, 10.1038/s41928-024-01271-4 | |
29. | Xin Li, Jingran Bu, Zhen Yang, Hao Li, Hui Zuo, Yuning Wang, Jing Zhou, A Denoising Method for Loaded Coal-Rock Charge Signals Based on a Joint Algorithm of IWT and ICEEMDAN, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 85178, 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3414590 | |
30. | Zemin Zhou, Yanrui Qu, Boqing Zhu, Bingbing Zhang, Detection of Typical Transient Signals in Water by XGBoost Classifier Based on Shape Statistical Features: Application to the Call of Southern Right Whale, 2024, 12, 2077-1312, 1596, 10.3390/jmse12091596 | |
31. | Qi Liu, Zhifan Zhao, Huaishu Hou, Jinhao Li, Shuaijun Xia, Research on signal denoising algorithm based on ICEEMDAN eddy current detection, 2024, 19, 1748-0221, P09026, 10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09026 | |
32. | Liu Cui, Zhisen Si, Kai Zhao, Shuangkui Wang, Denoising method for colonic pressure signals based on improved wavelet threshold, 2024, 10, 2057-1976, 065047, 10.1088/2057-1976/ad81fc | |
33. | Jianpeng Tang, Xugang Xi, Ting Wang, Junhong Wang, Lihua Li, Zhong Lü, Analysis of corticomuscular-cortical functional network based on time-delayed maximal information spectral coefficient, 2023, 20, 1741-2560, 056017, 10.1088/1741-2552/acf7f7 | |
34. | Huilin Chen, Li Zhang, Danyang Li, Jingao Xu, Weiqi Yang, Zheng Yang, REFLoc: A Resilient Evolutionary Fusion Framework for Robust Indoor Localization, 2024, 73, 0018-9456, 1, 10.1109/TIM.2024.3403196 | |
35. | Peng Pang, Xiwen Wei, Xinnian Yang, Real-time Monitoring Algorithm of Muscle State Based on sEMG Signal, 2023, 2560, 1742-6588, 012003, 10.1088/1742-6596/2560/1/012003 | |
36. | Jantine J Wisse, Peter Somhorst, Joris Behr, Arthur R van Nieuw Amerongen, Diederik Gommers, Annemijn H Jonkman, Improved filtering methods to suppress cardiovascular contamination in electrical impedance tomography recordings, 2024, 45, 0967-3334, 055010, 10.1088/1361-6579/ad46e3 | |
37. | Jianpeng Tang, Xugang Xi, Ting Wang, Junhong Wang, Lihua Li, Zhong Lü, Influence of neuromuscular electrical stimulation pulse waveform on corticomuscular coupling and the brain functional connectivity network, 2024, 88, 17468094, 105627, 10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105627 | |
38. | Yongkun Zhao, Shibo Jing, Haijun Wu, Honghan Li, Masahiro Todoh, E-TRGAN: A Novel Transformer Generative Adversarial Network for High-Density Surface Electromyography Signal Reconstruction, 2024, 73, 0018-9456, 1, 10.1109/TIM.2024.3472778 | |
39. | Xin Huang, Weiwei Qian, Peng Zhang, Zhongtian Ding, Shunming Li, A hybrid transformer masked time-domain denoising network for vibration signals, 2025, 36, 0957-0233, 016193, 10.1088/1361-6501/ad99f2 | |
40. | Pawel Trajdos, A noise-tolerant dual multi-classifier system with fuzzy model applied to the sEMG-based control of a bionic upper limb prosthesis, 2025, 104, 17468094, 107441, 10.1016/j.bspc.2024.107441 | |
41. | Mohamed Ait Yous, Said Agounad, Siham Elbaz, Detection, identification and removing of artifacts from sEMG signals: Current studies and future challenges, 2025, 186, 00104825, 109651, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109651 | |
42. | Jin Su Kim, Sungbum Pan, Electromyogram Based Personal Recognition Using Attention Mechanism for IoT Security, 2023, 77, 1546-2226, 1663, 10.32604/cmc.2023.043998 | |
43. | Jianpeng Tang, Xugang Xi, Ting Wang, Lihua Li, Jian Yang, Evaluation of the impacts of neuromuscular electrical stimulation based on cortico-muscular-cortical functional network, 2025, 265, 01692607, 108735, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.108735 | |
44. | Kuan-Chen Wang, Kai-Chun Liu, Ping-Cheng Yeh, Sheng-Yu Peng, Yu Tsao, TrustEMG-Net: Using Representation-Masking Transformer With U-Net for Surface Electromyography Enhancement, 2025, 29, 2168-2194, 2506, 10.1109/JBHI.2024.3475817 | |
45. | Weidong Zhu, Xugang Xi, Ting Wang, Shunlan Du, Lihua Li, Corticomuscular Coupling Analysis of Dynamic Balance During Eccentric and Concentric Muscle Contractions, 2025, 61, 0953-816X, 10.1111/ejn.70120 | |
46. | Zonglu Zhang, 2025, Chapter 9, 978-3-031-88293-7, 82, 10.1007/978-3-031-88294-4_9 |
IMF | IMF1 | IMF2 | IMF3 | IMF4 | IMF5 | IMF6 | IMF7 | IMF8 | IMF9 | IMF10 |
Variance | 0.0006 | 0.0016 | 0.0038 | 0.0145 | 0.0094 | 0.0264 | 0.0359 | 0.0453 | 0.0504 | 0.1694 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR24.62 | RMSE2.762 | SNR10.00 | PSNR29.54 | RMSE1.567 | SNR15.00 | PSNR34.42 | RMSE0.894 | SNR20.00 | PSNR39.49 | RMSE0.498 |
Hard threshold | 10.06 | 28.87 | 2.065 | 12.48 | 31.91 | 1.563 | 15.69 | 34.36 | 1.080 | 17.85 | 36.37 | 0.842 |
Soft threshold | 9.182 | 28.39 | 2.284 | 11.76 | 31.25 | 1.697 | 13.70 | 33.60 | 1.358 | 15.65 | 35.53 | 1.085 |
Improved threshold | 10.32 | 29.21 | 2.003 | 14.85 | 32.62 | 1.190 | 18.44 | 35.47 | 0.786 | 21.91 | 37.74 | 0.528 |
EMD | 7.539 | 26.99 | 2.759 | 10.17 | 31.28 | 2.037 | 8.29 | 28.89 | 2.531 | 8.843 | 27.79 | 2.375 |
EMDWT | 10.21 | 28.50 | 2.029 | 14.23 | 33.92 | 1.277 | 17.12 | 36.83 | 0.916 | 19.14 | 39.97 | 0.726 |
EEMD | 7.866 | 28.17 | 2.658 | 9.009 | 30.20 | 2.330 | 9.25 | 27.52 | 2.267 | 8.837 | 27.12 | 2.377 |
EEMDWT | 10.79 | 30.15 | 1.898 | 14.95 | 34.07 | 1.176 | 18.86 | 38.59 | 0.750 | 23.58 | 42.76 | 0.435 |
CEEMDAN | 8.667 | 28.05 | 2.544 | 12.79 | 32.18 | 1.547 | 12.32 | 31.82 | 1.411 | 11.04 | 30.19 | 1.403 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 10.66 | 29.30 | 1.932 | 14.79 | 33.87 | 1.170 | 18.64 | 37.93 | 0.859 | 23.47 | 42.19 | 0.477 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR19.64 | RMSE2.634 | SNR10.00 | PSNR24.52 | RMSE1.502 | SNR15.00 | PSNR29.36 | RMSE0.860 | SNR20.00 | PSNR34.70 | RMSE0.465 |
Hard threshold | 11.71 | 26.04 | 1.244 | 14.77 | 28.86 | 0.874 | 16.27 | 30.72 | 0.736 | 18.71 | 32.63 | 0.556 |
Soft threshold | 11.69 | 26.14 | 1.246 | 14.63 | 29.08 | 0.889 | 15.97 | 30.41 | 0.762 | 17.79 | 32.23 | 0.618 |
Improved threshold | 11.92 | 26.37 | 1.214 | 16.16 | 29.60 | 0.746 | 17.59 | 31.12 | 0.632 | 23.37 | 33.16 | 0.325 |
EMD | 10.09 | 22.94 | 1.500 | 13.63 | 28.07 | 0.998 | 18.21 | 32.49 | 0.589 | 23.84 | 38.29 | 0.308 |
EMDWT | 11.37 | 25.37 | 1.293 | 15.02 | 30.43 | 0.849 | 18.64 | 33.74 | 0.560 | 24.66 | 38.65 | 0.280 |
EEMD | 11.42 | 23.74 | 1.287 | 14.52 | 28.93 | 0.900 | 19.09 | 33.51 | 0.532 | 24.80 | 39.33 | 0.276 |
EEMDWT | 12.40 | 26.77 | 1.149 | 17.02 | 31.77 | 0.675 | 20.71 | 35.11 | 0.442 | 26.21 | 40.17 | 0.234 |
CEEMDAN | 9.171 | 23.56 | 1.666 | 14.41 | 28.81 | 0.911 | 18.89 | 33.27 | 0.544 | 24.22 | 38.74 | 0.295 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 11.99 | 24.38 | 1.212 | 16.50 | 29.41 | 0.703 | 20.33 | 33.65 | 0.477 | 25.15 | 39.67 | 0.250 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR15.85 | RMSE0.854 | SNR10.00 | PSNR20.91 | RMSE0.477 | SNR15.00 | PSNR26.03 | RMSE0.265 | SNR20.00 | PSNR30.75 | RMSE0.154 |
Hard threshold | 11.91 | 22.76 | 0.385 | 14.82 | 25.37 | 0.276 | 16.61 | 27.23 | 0.224 | 20.76 | 29.06 | 0.139 |
Soft threshold | 11.96 | 22.81 | 0.383 | 14.83 | 25.69 | 0.275 | 16.44 | 27.29 | 0.229 | 19.26 | 28.98 | 0.165 |
Improved threshold | 11.97 | 22.82 | 0.383 | 15.19 | 26.04 | 0.264 | 17.16 | 28.01 | 0.211 | 23.10 | 29.78 | 0.106 |
EMD | 8.124 | 18.95 | 0.596 | 13.49 | 24.34 | 0.321 | 18.32 | 29.17 | 0.184 | 23.76 | 34.12 | 0.099 |
EMDWT | 11.01 | 21.50 | 0.427 | 15.01 | 26.58 | 0.270 | 19.84 | 31.13 | 0.155 | 24.22 | 34.70 | 0.093 |
EEMD | 8.73 | 19.60 | 0.555 | 14.44 | 25.37 | 0.288 | 19.39 | 30.31 | 0.163 | 24.44 | 35.10 | 0.091 |
EEMDWT | 12.11 | 22.73 | 0.377 | 17.13 | 28.05 | 0.211 | 21.29 | 32.17 | 0.131 | 25.74 | 36.03 | 0.078 |
CEEMDAN | 8.656 | 19.48 | 0.560 | 13.97 | 25.15 | 0.304 | 19.11 | 29.79 | 0.168 | 23.89 | 34.70 | 0.097 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 12.01 | 20.23 | 0.379 | 16.79 | 25.68 | 0.220 | 20.77 | 30.09 | 0.144 | 24.95 | 35.60 | 0.088 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR14.46 | RMSE0.422 | SNR10.00 | PSNR19.20 | RMSE0.244 | SNR15.00 | PSNR24.50 | RMSE0.133 | SNR20.00 | PSNR29.03 | RMSE0.079 |
Hard threshold | 11.30 | 20.70 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.04 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.58 | 0.051 |
Soft threshold | 11.30 | 20.69 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.03 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.73 | 0.051 |
Improved threshold | 12.70 | 20.59 | 0.175 | 13.76 | 24.95 | 0.155 | 20.89 | 30.28 | 0.068 | 26.58 | 35.63 | 0.035 |
EMD | 8.389 | 17.78 | 0.287 | 13.34 | 22.73 | 0.163 | 18.37 | 27.76 | 0.091 | 24.00 | 32.74 | 0.048 |
EMDWT | 10.48 | 22.19 | 0.226 | 14.90 | 26.56 | 0.136 | 20.49 | 31.87 | 0.071 | 25.59 | 37.20 | 0.040 |
EEMD | 9.359 | 18.73 | 0.257 | 14.15 | 23.52 | 0.148 | 19.59 | 28.90 | 0.079 | 24.73 | 33.66 | 0.044 |
EEMDWT | 13.87 | 23.23 | 0.153 | 16.71 | 27.58 | 0.110 | 22.14 | 32.93 | 0.059 | 27.72 | 37.66 | 0.031 |
CEEMDAN | 9.24 | 18.34 | 0.261 | 14.11 | 23.44 | 0.149 | 19.41 | 28.69 | 0.081 | 23.75 | 33.17 | 0.049 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 13.76 | 22.22 | 0.155 | 15.78 | 27.36 | 0.127 | 20.92 | 32.39 | 0.070 | 27.02 | 36.73 | 0.034 |
IMF | IMF1 | IMF2 | IMF3 | IMF4 | IMF5 | IMF6 | IMF7 | IMF8 | IMF9 | IMF10 |
Variance | 0.0006 | 0.0016 | 0.0038 | 0.0145 | 0.0094 | 0.0264 | 0.0359 | 0.0453 | 0.0504 | 0.1694 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR24.62 | RMSE2.762 | SNR10.00 | PSNR29.54 | RMSE1.567 | SNR15.00 | PSNR34.42 | RMSE0.894 | SNR20.00 | PSNR39.49 | RMSE0.498 |
Hard threshold | 10.06 | 28.87 | 2.065 | 12.48 | 31.91 | 1.563 | 15.69 | 34.36 | 1.080 | 17.85 | 36.37 | 0.842 |
Soft threshold | 9.182 | 28.39 | 2.284 | 11.76 | 31.25 | 1.697 | 13.70 | 33.60 | 1.358 | 15.65 | 35.53 | 1.085 |
Improved threshold | 10.32 | 29.21 | 2.003 | 14.85 | 32.62 | 1.190 | 18.44 | 35.47 | 0.786 | 21.91 | 37.74 | 0.528 |
EMD | 7.539 | 26.99 | 2.759 | 10.17 | 31.28 | 2.037 | 8.29 | 28.89 | 2.531 | 8.843 | 27.79 | 2.375 |
EMDWT | 10.21 | 28.50 | 2.029 | 14.23 | 33.92 | 1.277 | 17.12 | 36.83 | 0.916 | 19.14 | 39.97 | 0.726 |
EEMD | 7.866 | 28.17 | 2.658 | 9.009 | 30.20 | 2.330 | 9.25 | 27.52 | 2.267 | 8.837 | 27.12 | 2.377 |
EEMDWT | 10.79 | 30.15 | 1.898 | 14.95 | 34.07 | 1.176 | 18.86 | 38.59 | 0.750 | 23.58 | 42.76 | 0.435 |
CEEMDAN | 8.667 | 28.05 | 2.544 | 12.79 | 32.18 | 1.547 | 12.32 | 31.82 | 1.411 | 11.04 | 30.19 | 1.403 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 10.66 | 29.30 | 1.932 | 14.79 | 33.87 | 1.170 | 18.64 | 37.93 | 0.859 | 23.47 | 42.19 | 0.477 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR19.64 | RMSE2.634 | SNR10.00 | PSNR24.52 | RMSE1.502 | SNR15.00 | PSNR29.36 | RMSE0.860 | SNR20.00 | PSNR34.70 | RMSE0.465 |
Hard threshold | 11.71 | 26.04 | 1.244 | 14.77 | 28.86 | 0.874 | 16.27 | 30.72 | 0.736 | 18.71 | 32.63 | 0.556 |
Soft threshold | 11.69 | 26.14 | 1.246 | 14.63 | 29.08 | 0.889 | 15.97 | 30.41 | 0.762 | 17.79 | 32.23 | 0.618 |
Improved threshold | 11.92 | 26.37 | 1.214 | 16.16 | 29.60 | 0.746 | 17.59 | 31.12 | 0.632 | 23.37 | 33.16 | 0.325 |
EMD | 10.09 | 22.94 | 1.500 | 13.63 | 28.07 | 0.998 | 18.21 | 32.49 | 0.589 | 23.84 | 38.29 | 0.308 |
EMDWT | 11.37 | 25.37 | 1.293 | 15.02 | 30.43 | 0.849 | 18.64 | 33.74 | 0.560 | 24.66 | 38.65 | 0.280 |
EEMD | 11.42 | 23.74 | 1.287 | 14.52 | 28.93 | 0.900 | 19.09 | 33.51 | 0.532 | 24.80 | 39.33 | 0.276 |
EEMDWT | 12.40 | 26.77 | 1.149 | 17.02 | 31.77 | 0.675 | 20.71 | 35.11 | 0.442 | 26.21 | 40.17 | 0.234 |
CEEMDAN | 9.171 | 23.56 | 1.666 | 14.41 | 28.81 | 0.911 | 18.89 | 33.27 | 0.544 | 24.22 | 38.74 | 0.295 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 11.99 | 24.38 | 1.212 | 16.50 | 29.41 | 0.703 | 20.33 | 33.65 | 0.477 | 25.15 | 39.67 | 0.250 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR15.85 | RMSE0.854 | SNR10.00 | PSNR20.91 | RMSE0.477 | SNR15.00 | PSNR26.03 | RMSE0.265 | SNR20.00 | PSNR30.75 | RMSE0.154 |
Hard threshold | 11.91 | 22.76 | 0.385 | 14.82 | 25.37 | 0.276 | 16.61 | 27.23 | 0.224 | 20.76 | 29.06 | 0.139 |
Soft threshold | 11.96 | 22.81 | 0.383 | 14.83 | 25.69 | 0.275 | 16.44 | 27.29 | 0.229 | 19.26 | 28.98 | 0.165 |
Improved threshold | 11.97 | 22.82 | 0.383 | 15.19 | 26.04 | 0.264 | 17.16 | 28.01 | 0.211 | 23.10 | 29.78 | 0.106 |
EMD | 8.124 | 18.95 | 0.596 | 13.49 | 24.34 | 0.321 | 18.32 | 29.17 | 0.184 | 23.76 | 34.12 | 0.099 |
EMDWT | 11.01 | 21.50 | 0.427 | 15.01 | 26.58 | 0.270 | 19.84 | 31.13 | 0.155 | 24.22 | 34.70 | 0.093 |
EEMD | 8.73 | 19.60 | 0.555 | 14.44 | 25.37 | 0.288 | 19.39 | 30.31 | 0.163 | 24.44 | 35.10 | 0.091 |
EEMDWT | 12.11 | 22.73 | 0.377 | 17.13 | 28.05 | 0.211 | 21.29 | 32.17 | 0.131 | 25.74 | 36.03 | 0.078 |
CEEMDAN | 8.656 | 19.48 | 0.560 | 13.97 | 25.15 | 0.304 | 19.11 | 29.79 | 0.168 | 23.89 | 34.70 | 0.097 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 12.01 | 20.23 | 0.379 | 16.79 | 25.68 | 0.220 | 20.77 | 30.09 | 0.144 | 24.95 | 35.60 | 0.088 |
Noised signal | SNR5.000 | PSNR14.46 | RMSE0.422 | SNR10.00 | PSNR19.20 | RMSE0.244 | SNR15.00 | PSNR24.50 | RMSE0.133 | SNR20.00 | PSNR29.03 | RMSE0.079 |
Hard threshold | 11.30 | 20.70 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.04 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.58 | 0.051 |
Soft threshold | 11.30 | 20.69 | 0.206 | 12.87 | 25.03 | 0.172 | 18.27 | 30.36 | 0.092 | 23.34 | 35.73 | 0.051 |
Improved threshold | 12.70 | 20.59 | 0.175 | 13.76 | 24.95 | 0.155 | 20.89 | 30.28 | 0.068 | 26.58 | 35.63 | 0.035 |
EMD | 8.389 | 17.78 | 0.287 | 13.34 | 22.73 | 0.163 | 18.37 | 27.76 | 0.091 | 24.00 | 32.74 | 0.048 |
EMDWT | 10.48 | 22.19 | 0.226 | 14.90 | 26.56 | 0.136 | 20.49 | 31.87 | 0.071 | 25.59 | 37.20 | 0.040 |
EEMD | 9.359 | 18.73 | 0.257 | 14.15 | 23.52 | 0.148 | 19.59 | 28.90 | 0.079 | 24.73 | 33.66 | 0.044 |
EEMDWT | 13.87 | 23.23 | 0.153 | 16.71 | 27.58 | 0.110 | 22.14 | 32.93 | 0.059 | 27.72 | 37.66 | 0.031 |
CEEMDAN | 9.24 | 18.34 | 0.261 | 14.11 | 23.44 | 0.149 | 19.41 | 28.69 | 0.081 | 23.75 | 33.17 | 0.049 |
CEEMDAN & WT | 13.76 | 22.22 | 0.155 | 15.78 | 27.36 | 0.127 | 20.92 | 32.39 | 0.070 | 27.02 | 36.73 | 0.034 |