JN Ad Instruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (May 21, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.90219.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/3/1223    most recent
90219.2008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Farina, D.
Right arrow Articles by Enoka, R. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Farina, D.
Right arrow Articles by Enoka, R. M
Submitted on February 1, 2008
Revised on April 4, 2008
Accepted on May 6, 2008

Detecting the Unique Representation of Motor-Unit Action Potentials in the Surface Electromyogram

Dario Farina1, Francesco Negro, Marco Gazzoni, and Roger M Enoka2*

1 Aalborg University
2 University of Colorado

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: enoka{at}colorado.edu.

This study investigated the relative proportion of motor-unit action potentials that are uniquely represented in the simulated and experimental surface EMG. Two-hundred motor units were simulated in a cylindrical anatomical system. Action potentials for each motor unit were generated with a model and then compared with those of other motor units. Pairs of motor units were considered indistinguishable, and the motor units not uniquely represented in the surface EMG, when the difference in the mean energy for the pair of potentials was less than 5%. The anatomical conditions and recording configurations had a substantial influence on the percentage of motor units that could be uniquely identified in the simulated EMG. For example, a single monopolar channel could discriminate only 3.4% of motor units in the simulated population, whereas a system with 81 Laplacian channels arranged in a grid could discriminate 83.8% of the motor units under the same conditions. The simulation results were confirmed with populations of motor units recorded experimentally from the abductor digiti minimi muscle of 8 healthy men. Furthermore, the relative proportion of uniquely identified motor units in the simulated signal was only moderately related to motor-unit size and distance from the electrodes. These results indicate the upper limit for detection of individual motor units from the surface EMG and show that a few channels of surface EMG recordings are not sufficient to study single motor units. The non-invasive identification of motor units from the surface EMG requires the use of multiple channels of information.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
D. Farina, A. Holobar, M. Gazzoni, D. Zazula, R. Merletti, and R. M. Enoka
Adjustments Differ Among Low-Threshold Motor Units During Intermittent, Isometric Contractions
J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2009; 101(1): 350 - 359.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.