| Literature DB >> 24985941 |
Thomas Kienbacher1, Richard Habenicht, Christian Starek, Patrick Mair, Markus Wolf, Birgit Paul, Sara Riegler, Josef Kollmitzer, Gerold Ebenbichler.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine whether or not median frequency surface electromyographic (MF-EMG) back muscle fatigue monitoring would be able to identify alterations in back muscle function in elderly muscles, if a protocol was used that allowed optimum standardization of the processes underlying electromyographic fatigue, and whether these tests were reliable from day to day.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24985941 PMCID: PMC4105890 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1This figure provides an example of the raw signal quality of both the surface electromyogram (upper box) and the accelerogram (mid box) recorded from the L5 left electrode site during an 80% MVC sustained back extension. In the lower box, results of the MF-EMG processing including the MF EMG values calculated for each individual epoch and those of the linear regression analysis are provided.
Descriptive data of participants
| | | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <50 | 33.14 (1.66) | | | | | | |
| >50 | 67.11 (1.55) | | | | | | |
| <50 | 24.11 (0.47) | | | | | | |
| >50 | 25.15 (0.45) | | | | | | |
| <50 | 337.15 (60.25) | | | | | | |
| >50 | 424.09 (59.07) | | | | | | |
| <50 | 47.2 (13.7) | | | | | | |
| >50 | 46.7 (10.0) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | ||
| <50 | 242.67 (11.65) | 02.00; 0.16 | 74.81; < 0.01 | 0.04; 0.84 | 23.98 (-5.66; 54.71) | 102.85 (80.67;125.56) | |
| >50 | 218.68 (11.19) | ||||||
| | | | | | |||
| <50 | 05.23 (0.29) | 00.61; 0.44 | 02.57; 0.11 | 0.01; 0.91 | 0.37 (-0.43; 1.19) | 0.68 (-0.11; 1.48) | |
| >50 | 04.87 (0.29) | ||||||
| <50 | 00.63 (0.12) | 01.44; 0.23 | 01.00; 0.32 | 0.61; 0.44 | 0.21 (-0.12; 0.54) | 0.18 (-0.14; 0.49) | |
| >50 | 00.42 (0.12) | ||||||
| <50 | 05.90 (0.31) | 00.30; 0.58 | 01.99; 0.16 | 0.78; 0.38 | 0.28 (-0.47; 1.04) | 0.62 (-0.13; 1.45) | |
| >50 | 05.62 (0.27) | ||||||
*Lever arm position data at the beginning of the sustained trunk extension were acquired from an accelerometer (Trigno, DelSys, MA, Boston) attached to the lever arm in a standardized way. Note that the degrees provided represent absolute values and relate to a 30° trunk anteflexion in the dynamometer.
Means and standard error are provided. This table further provides results of two-way ANOVAS (age, gender) of data from psychological testing, and the lever arm positions during the sustained contraction.
Summary of the MF-EMG variables recorded and averaged from all 3 days
| <50 | 91.74 (1.75) | 00.84; 0.36 | 00.56; 0.46 | 0.07; 0.79 | −2.20 (-06.96; 2.48) 1.88 (-2.69; 6.37) | |
| >50 | 93.94 (1.66) | |||||
| <50 | 102.81 (1.72) | 07.53; < 0.01 | 00.29; 0.59 | 0.10; 0.75 | −7.64 (-13.17;-2.08) -1.42 (-7.20; 4.07) | |
| >50 | 110.45 (2.23) | |||||
| <50 | 90.10 (2.12) | 01.33; 0.25 | 00.51; 0.48 | 0.02; 0.89 | −3.28 (-08.60; 1.91) 2.06 (-3.27; 7.35) | |
| >50 | 93.37 (1.80) | |||||
| <50 | 80.85 (1.77) | 00.08; 0.78 | 00.01; 0.90 | 0.36; 0.55 | 0.58 (-03.90; 4.88) 0.14 (-4.43; 4.63) | |
| >50 | 80.26 (1.55) | |||||
| <50 | 75.25 (1.53) | 00.08; 0.77 | 00.20; 0.66 | 0.01; 0.94 | −0.62 (-04.65; 3.51) 0.98 (-3.19; 4.95) | |
| | >50 | 75.87 (1.36) | | | | |
| | ||||||
| <50 | −0.20 (0.03) | 05.67; 0.02 | 02.06; 0.16 | 0.41; 0.53 | −0.10 (-0.17; -0.02) -0.06 (-0.14; 0.02) | |
| >50 | −0.11 (0.02) | |||||
| <50 | −0.24 (0.04) | 04.26; 0.04 | 00.17; 0.68 | 0.01; 0.98 | −0.10 (-0.19; -0.01) -0.02 (-0.12; 0.08) | |
| >50 | −0.14 (0.03) | |||||
| <50 | −0.19 (0.03) | 02.79; 0.10 | 01.91; 0.17 | 0.06; 0.80 | −0.08 (-0.16; 0.02) -0.06 (-0.15; 0.03) | |
| >50 | −0.12 (0.03) | |||||
| <50 | −0.14 (0.03) | 03.79; 0.06 | 00.55; 0.46 | 0.62; 0.43 | −0.07 (-0.14; -0.01) -0.03 (-0.10; 0.04) | |
| >50 | −0.07 (0.02) | |||||
| <50 | −0.46 (0.04) | 08.78; < 0.01 | 00.57; 0.45 | 0.22; 0.64 | −0.15 (-0.24; -0.06) -0.04 (-0.15; 0.06) | |
| | >50 | −0.31 (0.03) | | | | |
| | ||||||
| <50 | −0.21 (0.03) | 05.14; 0.03 | 01.47; 0.23 | 0.19; 0.66 | −0.10 (-0.18; -0.02) -0.06 (-0.14; 0.03) | |
| >50 | −0.12 (0.02) | |||||
| <50 | −0.26 (0.04) | 06.40; 0.01 | 00.17; 0.68 | 0.01; 0.98 | −0.13 (-0.23; -0.04) -0.02 (-0.13; 0.08) | |
| >50 | −0.12 (0.03) | |||||
| <50 | −0.20 (0.03) | 02.35; 0.13 | 01.62; 0.20 | 0.16; 0.69 | −0.07 (-0.16; 0.03) -0.06 (-0.15; 0.04) | |
| >50 | −0.13 (0.03) | |||||
| <50 | −0.16 (0.03) | 03.13; 0.08 | 00.52; 0.47 | 0.75; 0.39 | −0.08 (-0.16; 0.00) -0.03 (-0.11; 0.05) | |
| >50 | −0.08 (0.02) | |||||
| <50 | −0.46 (0.03) | 09.15; < 0.01 | 00.19; 0.66 | 0.01; 0.99 | −0.15 (-0.23; -0.05) -0.02 (-0.13; 0.07) | |
| >50 | −0.32 (0.03) | |||||
| | ||||||
| <50 | 8.21 (0.42) | 00.01; 0.92 | 00.10; 0.75 | 2.35; 0.13 | 0.00 (-1.43; 1.22) 0.14 (-1.18; 1.48) | |
| >50 | 8.22 (0.53) | |||||
| <50 | −1.63 (0.79) | 00.16; 0.69 | 06.64; 0.01 | 0.62; 0.43 | −0.49 (-2.81; 1.97) 2.96 (0.65; 5.13) | |
| >50 | −1.14 (0.95) | |||||
This table further presents the results of the 2 way ANOVAS (age, gender) as well as those of the subsequent intergroup comparisons.
Summary of the reliability analyses of the G-theoretic approach
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
| <50 | 0.70 | 5.98 | 35.80 | |
| >50 | 0.59 | 7.01 | 49.11 | |
| <50 | 0.83 | 4.23 | 17.93 | |
| >50 | 0.87 | 4.28 | 18.33 | |
| <50 | 0.87 | 4.85 | 23.53 | |
| >50 | 0.71 | 5.22 | 27.22 | |
| <50 | 0.84 | 4.21 | 17.70 | |
| >50 | 0.84 | 3.31 | 10.94 | |
| <50 | 0.84 | 4.30 | 18.52 | |
| >50 | 0.82 | 3.73 | 13.92 | |
| <50 | 0.70 | 0.11 | 0.012 | |
| >50 | 0.69 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.74 | 0.10 | 0.011 | |
| >50 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.79 | 0.09 | 0.008 | |
| >50 | 0.81 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 0.007 | |
| >50 | 0.62 | 0.06 | 0.004 | |
| <50 | 0.64 | 0.12 | 0.015 | |
| >50 | 0.71 | 0.09 | 0.008 | |
| <50 | 0.69 | 0.12 | 0.014 | |
| >50 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.79 | 0.11 | 0.012 | |
| >50 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.79 | 0.09 | 0.009 | |
| >50 | 0.84 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.72 | 0.10 | 0.010 | |
| >50 | 0.62 | 0.08 | 0.006 | |
| <50 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 0.016 | |
| >50 | 0.78 | 0.09 | 0.008 | |
D-values are a type of an Intraclass Correlation coefficient (ICC), absolute SEM = absolute square root of the error variance.
Note that for the individual MF-EMG measures, the type of decision is absolute.