4.4 Article

Coherence between surface electromyograms is influenced by electrode placement in hand muscles

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 195, 期 1, 页码 10-14

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.10.018

关键词

EMG-EMG coherence; Motor unit; Common modulation; Cross-correlation; Hand; Pinch grip; Synchronization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used multi-channel surface electromyograms (EMGs) to examine if electrode location influences coherence measures derived from pairs of EMGs recorded from two hand muscles during a pinch task. A linear probe of 16 electrodes was used to estimate the location of the innervation zone in first dorsal interosseous (FDI) and abductor pollicis brevis (APB). Four electrodes were then placed on the skin overlying each muscle and three bipolar electrode configurations were constructed with their center points directly over the innervation zone, and 15 mm distal and proximal to the innervation zone. Ten subjects performed two force-matching tasks for 120 sat 2 N and 3.5 N by pressing a force sensor held between the thumb and index finger. Coherence spectra were calculated from pairs of EMGs recorded from the two muscles. Maximal coherence from 1 to 15 Hz and 16 to 32 Hz was calculated at both force levels from the EMGs with electrodes centered over the innervation zones of FDI and APB. These values were compared to the maximal coherence from all other EMG comparisons across muscles recorded with electrodes that avoided the innervation zones. ANOVA revealed significant main effects only for electrode location, with a 58.1% increase (p = 0.001) in maximal coherence for EMGs detected from pairs of electrodes that avoided the innervation zone (from 0.11 +/- 0.02 to 0.18 +/- 0.03; mean +/- 95% confidence interval). These results indicate that electrode location relative to the innervation zone influences EMG-EMG coherence and should be carefully considered when placing EMG electrodes on hand muscles. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据