| Literature DB >> 25025551 |
Morufu Olusola Ibitoye1, Eduardo H Estigoni2, Nur Azah Hamzaid3, Ahmad Khairi Abdul Wahab4, Glen M Davis5.
Abstract
The evoked electromyographic signal (eEMG) potential is the standard index used to monitor both electrical changes within the motor unit during muscular activity and the electrical patterns during evoked contraction. However, technical and physiological limitations often preclude the acquisition and analysis of the signal especially during functional electrical stimulation (FES)-evoked contractions. Hence, an accurate quantification of the relationship between the eEMG potential and FES-evoked muscle response remains elusive and continues to attract the attention of researchers due to its potential application in the fields of biomechanics, muscle physiology, and rehabilitation science. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of eEMG potentials to assess muscle force and fatigue, particularly as a biofeedback descriptor of FES-evoked contractions in individuals with spinal cord injury. At the outset, 2867 citations were identified and, finally, fifty-nine trials met the inclusion criteria. Four hypotheses were proposed and evaluated to inform this review. The results showed that eEMG is effective at quantifying muscle force and fatigue during isometric contraction, but may not be effective during dynamic contractions including cycling and stepping. Positive correlation of up to r = 0.90 (p < 0.05) between the decline in the peak-to-peak amplitude of the eEMG and the decline in the force output during fatiguing isometric contractions has been reported. In the available prediction models, the performance index of the eEMG signal to estimate the generated muscle force ranged from 3.8% to 34% for 18 s to 70 s ahead of the actual muscle force generation. The strength and inherent limitations of the eEMG signal to assess muscle force and fatigue were evident from our findings with implications in clinical management of spinal cord injury (SCI) population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25025551 PMCID: PMC4168418 DOI: 10.3390/s140712598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Flowchart of steps taken for the selected articles.
Summary of studies on electrically evoked contraction and evoked electromyographic (EMG)-force relationship.
| Mizrahi | 1-T4 and 1-T6/7 SCI individuals | PTP, RTP, AVREC, RMS, TSP, MDF | Force-eEMG relationship was correlated by PTP and RMS ( |
|
| |||
| Erfanian | 2 complete T7 SCI individuals | MAV of eEMG | Evoked EMG predicted muscle torque at only one angle. |
|
| |||
| Ding | 14 SCI (all except one has thoracic level motor compete lesion). | PF, FTI | The predictive model was recommended for FES application because of the rapid parameter identification, fast optimization analysis and accurate prediction for feedforward control. |
|
| |||
| Zhang | 5 SCI individuals (3-T6, 1-C5, 1-C7) | MAV of eEMG | Torque prediction model based on Hammerstein structure properly fitted muscle model under isometric condition. |
|
| |||
| Hayashibe | 1 complete T8 SCI individual | MDF, MAV of M-wave | MDF of M-wave was correlated with the torque during fatigue ( |
|
| |||
| Li | 2 T6 level SCI individual used for validation of the muscle model | MAV of eEMG, Muscle torque | For prediction horizons of (10, 50, 70 s) the RMS error ranges from 0.0402 to 0.1067 |
|
| |||
| Hwang | 4 incomplete SCI and 4 Healthy Volunteers | RMS of VEMG, M-wave of eEMG | RMS of VEMG was shown to estimate torque but the performance was poor during validation in the feedback control system. |
Abbreviation: PW: Pulse width; SF: Stimulation frequency; VL: Vastus lateralis; PTP: Peak to peak amplitude; RTP: Rise time to peak amplitude; AVREC: Average rectified; RMS: Root mean square; TSP: Total spectra power; MDF: Median frequency; MAV: Mean absolute value; Peak torque: PTV; Force-time integral: FTI; EMG: Voluntary EMG; eEMG: Evoked EMG; RBF: Radial basis function; IM: Intramuscular.
Summary of studies on electrically evoked contraction and evoked EMG-fatigue relationship.
| Mizrahi | 4 complete SCI individuals | PTP amplitude of M-wave | The correlation coefficient of PTP amplitude of eEMG and force was up to ( |
|
| |||
| Erfanian | 1 complete SCI individual | PA, MDF | PA and the power spectrum increased during potentiation, decreased during fatigue and increased again during maximal fatigue |
|
| |||
| Tetapac | 4 complete SCI and 2 healthy individuals | MDF, MAV, PTP, RMS | The drop in MDF gave an indication of fatigue due to the neuromuscular propagation. |
|
| |||
| Chesler & Durfee, 1997 [ | 3 SCI and 20 healthy individuals | RMS, MF, MAV | Noiseless eEMG was difficult to obtain, thus, limited the usage in FES practical application. |
|
| |||
| Chen & Yu, 1997 [ | 4 Complete SCI individuals | PTP amplitude | During continuous and intermittent stimulation there were positive correlation between PTP of eEMG and muscle force ( |
|
| |||
| Yu | 5 SCI individual with lesion between C7-T11 | PTP amplitude, RTP, PTP duration, and torque | During fatigue; the decline in the PTP was positively correlated with the decline in the force output ( |
|
| |||
| Heasman | 2 SCI individuals | (PTP, RMS, SPA) amplitude, MNF | SPA and RMS of M-wave demonstrated the highest correlation ( |
|
| |||
| Estigoni | 8 SCI individuals | PTP amplitude | Variation in magnitude of M-wave changes compared to torque changes disallowed statistical modelling understanding of the fatigue effect generated by M-wave curve. |
|
| |||
| Li | 5 SCI individuals (3-T6, 1-C5, 1-C7) | MAV, Torque | The NARX-RNN demonstrated a robust identification performance while keeping its accuracy and stability. |
Abbreviations: PW: Pulse width; SF: Stimulation frequency; PTP: Peak to peak amplitude; PA: Peak amplitude; RMS: Root mean square; MDF: Median frequency; MAV: Mean absolute value; SPA: Second phase area (area under the curve of second phase of average M- wave); MNF: Mean frequency; WF: wave form; PW: Pulse duration; EDC: Extensor Digitorum Communis; EPL: Extensor Pollicis Longus; FPL- Flexor Pollicis Longus; NARX-Nonlinear autoregressive exogenous model; RNN-Recursive neural network.
Figure 2.An example of a predicted torque obtained by eEMG-torque model using FES evoked fatigue induced protocol in SCI population. The blue solid line and the red dotted represent the measured and predicted torque, respectively [41].
Figure 3.Quadriceps femoris muscle force under maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) and electrically evoked contraction (FES) at 100 Hz, 50 Hz and 20 Hz stimulation frequency [73]. The graph shows that the force generated against time in electrically evoked contraction depends on the stimulation frequency.
Figure 4.Differences between the evoked electromyographic signal (a) and the voluntary electromyographic signal (b). In the first case scenario (a), the fibres are activated by FES in a synchronous manner, building up a repetitive curve, also known as an M-wave.
Figure 5.The general representation of M-wave and some of the commonly extracted parameters: peak-to-peak amplitude (PtP), time between peaks (PtP time), time to peak (TtP), first peak area (FPA), second peak area (SPA) [51]. Typical, in time domain, the amplitude variables of an M-wave are voltage values detected from specific points of the signal, normally the peaks. The M-wave amplitude is essentially a reflex of the magnitude of the sum of individual Motor Unit Action Potentials (MUAPs) [83].
Figure 6.An example of the effect of stimulation artefact on evoked EMG (M-wave) [88].