Motor unit size estimation: confrontation of surface EMG with macro EMG |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Institute of Neurology, University Hospital Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;2. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Hospital Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden;1. Baltalimani Bone and Joint Diseases Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey;2. Suluova State Hospital, Amasya, Turkey;1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Shore–Long Island Jewish Health System, Great Neck, NY;2. Center for Immunology and Inflammation, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY;3. Biostatistics Unit, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY;1. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy;2. Villa Stuart Sport Clinic-FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Rome, Italy;1. Biolab, Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy;2. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolism, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy;3. Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore;4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, SIM University, Singapore;6. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy |
| |
| Abstract: | Surface EMG (SEMG) is little used for diagnostic purposes in clinical neurophysiology, mainly because it provides little direct information on individual motor units (MUs). One of the techniques to estimate the MU size is intra-muscular Macro EMG. The present study compares SEMG with Macro EMG. Fifty-eight channel SEMG was recorded simultaneously with Macro EMG. Individual MUPs were obtained by single fiber triggered averaging. All recordings were made from the biceps brachii of healthy subjects during voluntary contraction at low force. High positive correlations were found between all Macro and Surface motor unit potential (MUP) parameters: area, peak-to-peak amplitude, negative peak amplitude and positive peak amplitude. The MUPs recorded with SEMG were dependent on the distance between the MU and the skin surface. Normalizing the SEMG parameters for MU location did not improve the correlation coefficient between the parameters of both techniques. The two measurement techniques had almost the same relative range in MUP parameters in any individual subject compared to the others, especially after normalizing the surface MUP parameters for MU location. MUPs recorded with this type of SEMG provide useful information about the MU size. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
