Literature DB >> 21665489

A comparison of a maximum exertion method and a model-based, sub-maximum exertion method for normalizing trunk EMG.

Jacek Cholewicki1, Jaap van Dieën, Angela S Lee, N Peter Reeves.   

Abstract

The problem with normalizing EMG data from patients with painful symptoms (e.g., low back pain) is that such patients may be unwilling or unable to perform maximum exertions. Furthermore, the normalization to a reference signal, obtained from a maximal or sub-maximal task, tends to mask differences that might exist as a result of pathology. Therefore, we presented a novel method (GAIN method) for normalizing trunk EMG data that overcomes both problems. The GAIN method does not require maximal exertions (MVC) and tends to preserve distinct features in the muscle recruitment patterns for various tasks. Ten healthy subjects performed various isometric trunk exertions, while EMG data from 10 muscles were recorded and later normalized using the GAIN and MVC methods. The MVC method resulted in smaller variation between subjects when tasks were executed at the three relative force levels (10%, 20%, and 30% MVC), while the GAIN method resulted in smaller variation between subjects when the tasks were executed at the three absolute force levels (50 N, 100 N, and 145 N). This outcome implies that the MVC method provides a relative measure of muscle effort, while the GAIN-normalized data gives an estimate of the absolute muscle force. Therefore, the GAIN-normalized data tends to preserve the differences between subjects in the way they recruit their muscles to execute various tasks, while the MVC-normalized data will tend to suppress such differences. The appropriate choice of the EMG normalization method will depend on the specific question that an experimenter is attempting to answer.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21665489      PMCID: PMC4491505          DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.05.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol        ISSN: 1050-6411            Impact factor:   2.368


  33 in total

1.  A non-MVC EMG normalization technique for the trunk musculature: Part 2. Validation and use to predict spinal loads.

Authors:  W S Marras; K G Davis; A B Maronitis
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.368

2.  Assessment of an EMG-based method for continuous estimates of low back compression during asymmetrical occupational tasks.

Authors:  M I Mientjes; R W Norman; R P Wells; S M McGill
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Reliability of electromyographic normalization methods for evaluating the hip musculature.

Authors:  Lori A Bolgla; Timothy L Uhl
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 2.368

Review 4.  Methodological aspects of SEMG recordings for force estimation--a tutorial and review.

Authors:  Didier Staudenmann; Karin Roeleveld; Dick F Stegeman; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  The effect of exertion level on activation patterns and variability of trunk muscles during multidirectional isometric activities in upright posture.

Authors:  Saeed Talebian; Sayed Javad Mousavi; Gholam Reza Olyaei; Mohammad Ali Sanjari; Mohamad Parnianpour
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  An EMG-assisted model of loads on the lumbar spine during asymmetric trunk extensions.

Authors:  K P Granata; W S Marras
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Electromyography reliability in maximal and submaximal isometric contractions.

Authors:  J F Yang; D A Winter
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.966

8.  Electromyographic amplitude normalization methods: improving their sensitivity as diagnostic tools in gait analysis.

Authors:  J F Yang; D A Winter
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  On the use of EMG-ratios to assess the coordination of back muscles.

Authors:  Christian Larivière; A Bertrand Arsenault
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.063

10.  Trunk strengths in attempted flexion, extension, and lateral bending in healthy subjects and patients with low-back disorders.

Authors:  T McNeill; D Warwick; G Andersson; A Schultz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1980 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  7 in total

1.  Reliability of assessing trunk motor control using position and force tracking and stabilization tasks.

Authors:  N Peter Reeves; John M Popovich; M Cody Priess; Jacek Cholewicki; Jongeun Choi; Clark J Radcliffe
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Can Kinesio Taping® influence the electromyographic signal intensity of trunk extensor muscles in patients with chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Leandro Garcia Pires; Rosimeire Simprini Padula; Maurício Antônio Da Luz Junior; Irlei Santos; Matheus Oliveira Almeida; Shaiane Silva Tomazoni; Lucíola Cunha Menezes Costa; Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2019-12-15       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Exploring Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Intensity Effects on Multifidus Muscle Activity in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: An Ultrasound Imaging-Informed Investigation.

Authors:  Jaclyn Megan Sions; DeJ'a Chyanna Crippen; Gregory Evan Hicks; Abdulmohsen Meshari Alroumi; Tara Jo Manal; Ryan Todd Pohlig
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-05-20

4.  Investigating differences in trunk muscle activity in non-specific chronic low back pain subgroups and no-low back pain controls during functional tasks: a case-control study.

Authors:  Rebecca Hemming; Liba Sheeran; Robert van Deursen; Valerie Sparkes
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Neuromuscular adaptations after a rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: case series (uncontrolled longitudinal study).

Authors:  Arnaud Dupeyron; Christophe Demattei; Pascal Kouyoumdjian; Olivier Missenard; Jean Paul Micallef; Stéphane Perrey
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Plyometrics Can Preserve Peak Power During 2 Months of Physical Inactivity: An RCT Including a One-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Andreas Kramer; Jakob Kümmel; Albert Gollhofer; Gabriele Armbrecht; Ramona Ritzmann; Daniel Belavy; Dieter Felsenberg; Markus Gruber
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 4.566

7.  Total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis affect the biomechanics of the inner foot differently.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Duo Wai-Chi Wong; Qitao Tan; Zengyong Li; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.