Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Muscle sites for Delsys Trigno EMG sensor attachment.

The muscle sites included deltoid, triceps, biceps, Extensor Carpi Ulnaris (ECU), Flexor Carpi Ulnaris (FCU), Thenar Eminence (TE) for the left and right side.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Knot tying task performed by participants.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Pegboard transfer task performed by participants.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

(a) position of six muscles sites where surface EMG sensors were affixed (b)Pegboard transfer task (c) Robotic suturing task using Da Vinci (d) Knot tying task (e) Ureteroscopy task.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Temporal and frequency domain features extracted from EMG signals.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Linear and nonlinear features extracted from accelerometer data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

Flow chart of feature selection-based model development and identification of parameters of muscle importance for skill classification.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Linear variability as measured by RMS of EMG signals between groups of 3 skill levels.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

The dominant frequency of EMG signals during the performance of 3 surgical tasks (knot tying, pegboard transfer, and robotic suturing).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

The cumulative muscular workload for completing surgical tasks (knot tying, pegboard transfer, and robotic suturing) by three groups of different skill levels (expert, intermediate, and novice).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Average muscular work done per second and significant differences in the robotic suturing task.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

High complexity measured by multiscale entropy.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

A correlation matrix shows correlation coefficients between features.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 3.

Feature importance as determined by recursive feature elimination method.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Performance metrics were evaluated by the three ML models (random forest classifier, SVM, and Naïve Bayes) with six muscle datasets.

Highest accuracies are heighted in the table as bold.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

This table shows the performance of a combination of muscles for surgical skill evaluation for each model separately.

Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score are reported for all 3 classification models. Highest accuracies are highlighted in the table as bold.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 12.

ROC curves showing performance of two muscles (ECU and Biceps) for skill level classification among a) novice, b) intermediate, and c) expert using three classifiers random forest (blue line), Naïve Bayes (orange line), SVM (green line).

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

ROC curves showing performance of two muscles (ECU and Deltoid) for skill level classification among a) novice, b) intermediate, and c) expert using three classifiers random forest (blue line), Naïve Bayes (orange line), SVM (green line).

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

ROC curves showing performance of two muscles (ECU, Biceps and Deltoid) for skill level classification among a) novice, b) intermediate, and c) expert using three classifiers random forest (blue line), Naïve Bayes (orange line), SVM (green line).

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Total time taken for completing surgical tasks (knot tying, pegboard transfer and robotic suturing) by three groups of different skill level (expert, intermediate and novice).

More »

Fig 15 Expand