Literature DB >> 29420155

Surface electromyographic amplitude does not identify differences in neural drive to synergistic muscles.

Eduardo Martinez-Valdes1,2,3, Francesco Negro4, Deborah Falla1, Alessandro Marco De Nunzio1, Dario Farina5.   

Abstract

Surface electromyographic (EMG) signal amplitude is typically used to compare the neural drive to muscles. We experimentally investigated this association by studying the motor unit (MU) behavior and action potentials in the vastus medialis (VM) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles. Eighteen participants performed isometric knee extensions at four target torques [10, 30, 50, and 70% of the maximum torque (MVC)] while high-density EMG signals were recorded from the VM and VL. The absolute EMG amplitude was greater for VM than VL ( P < 0.001), whereas the EMG amplitude normalized with respect to MVC was greater for VL than VM ( P < 0.04). Because differences in EMG amplitude can be due to both differences in the neural drive and in the size of the MU action potentials, we indirectly inferred the neural drives received by the two muscles by estimating the synaptic inputs received by the corresponding motor neuron pools. For this purpose, we analyzed the increase in discharge rate from recruitment to target torque for motor units matched by recruitment threshold in the two muscles. This analysis indicated that the two muscles received similar levels of neural drive. Nonetheless, the size of the MU action potentials was greater for VM than VL ( P < 0.001), and this difference explained most of the differences in EMG amplitude between the two muscles (~63% of explained variance). These results indicate that EMG amplitude, even following normalization, does not reflect the neural drive to synergistic muscles. Moreover, absolute EMG amplitude is mainly explained by the size of MU action potentials. NEW &amp; NOTEWORTHY Electromyographic (EMG) amplitude is widely used to compare indirectly the strength of neural drive received by synergistic muscles. However, there are no studies validating this approach with motor unit data. Here, we compared between-muscles differences in surface EMG amplitude and motor unit behavior. The results clarify the limitations of surface EMG to interpret differences in neural drive between muscles.

Entities:  

Keywords:  amplitude; high-density surface EMG: synergistic muscles; motor unit; motor unit action potential; surface electromyography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29420155     DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01115.2017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  15 in total

1.  Manipulation of mechanical ventilatory constraint during moderate intensity exercise does not influence dyspnoea in healthy older men and women.

Authors:  Yannick Molgat-Seon; Andrew H Ramsook; Carli M Peters; Michele R Schaeffer; Paolo B Dominelli; Lee M Romer; Jeremy D Road; Jordan A Guenette; A William Sheel
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Plantar flexor muscle-tendon unit length and stiffness do not influence neuromuscular fatigue in boys and men.

Authors:  Enzo Piponnier; Sébastien Ratel; Emeric Chalchat; Kévin Jagot; Bastien Bontemps; Valérie Julian; Olivia Bocock; Martine Duclos; Vincent Martin
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  The effect of rate of torque development on motor unit recruitment and firing rates during isometric voluntary trapezoidal contractions.

Authors:  Jonathan D Miller; C J Lund; Marissa D Gingrich; Kyle L Schtul; Mandy E Wray; Trent J Herda
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Differential activation of lumbar and sacral motor pools during walking at different speeds and slopes.

Authors:  A H Dewolf; Y P Ivanenko; K E Zelik; F Lacquaniti; P A Willems
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Vastus lateralis muscle tissue composition and motor unit properties in chronically endurance-trained vs. sedentary women.

Authors:  Hannah L Dimmick; Jonathan D Miller; Adam J Sterczala; Michael A Trevino; Trent J Herda
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Hamstring stiffness pattern during contraction in healthy individuals: analysis by ultrasound-based shear wave elastography.

Authors:  Bruno Mendes; Telmo Firmino; Raúl Oliveira; Tiago Neto; Jorge Infante; João R Vaz; Sandro R Freitas
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.078

7.  Electromyographic amplitude versus torque relationships are different in young versus postmenopausal females and are related to muscle mass after controlling for bodyweight.

Authors:  Nile F Banks; Emily M Rogers; Nathaniel D M Jenkins
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 3.078

8.  Do individual differences in the distribution of activation between synergist muscles reflect individual strategies?

Authors:  Marion Crouzier; François Hug; Sylvain Dorel; Thibault Deschamps; Kylie Tucker; Lilian Lacourpaille
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Variation in the spatial distribution of erector spinae activity during a lumbar endurance task in people with low back pain.

Authors:  Andy Sanderson; Eduardo Martinez-Valdes; Nicola R Heneghan; Carlos Murillo; Alison Rushton; Deborah Falla
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 2.610

10.  Neuromuscular Fatigue Does Not Impair the Rate of Force Development in Ballistic Contractions of Submaximal Amplitudes.

Authors:  Gennaro Boccia; Davide Dardanello; Paolo Riccardo Brustio; Cantor Tarperi; Luca Festa; Chiara Zoppirolli; Barbara Pellegrini; Federico Schena; Alberto Rainoldi
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.