| Literature DB >> 30279674 |
Zhixian Gao1, Lin Chen1,2, Qiliang Xiong1, Nong Xiao3, Wei Jiang3, Yuan Liu3, Xiaoying Wu1,4, Wensheng Hou1,2,4.
Abstract
Background: Synergistic recruitment of muscular activities is a generally accepted mechanism for motor function control, and motor dysfunction, such as cerebral palsy (CP), destroyed the synergistic electromyography activities of muscle group for limb movement. However, very little is known how motor dysfunction of CP affects the organization of the myoelectric frequency components due to the abnormal motor unit recruiting patterns.Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; infants crawling; muscle synergy; sEMG oscillations; synergistic recruitment
Year: 2018 PMID: 30279674 PMCID: PMC6153367 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Experiment setup of markers and sEMG electrodes.
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed oscillation synergy analysis framework.
Figure 3sEMG and kinematic recorded in infant crawling. (A) Diagram of the crawling cycle of left upper limb [Adapted from Patrick et al. (33)]; (B) Schematic of the shoulder joint angle (AS); (C) Refined crawling phases, and the corresponding sEMG signals of bilateral TB and BB (LTB, left TB; LBB, left BB; RTB, right TB; RBB, right BB;) of one crawling cycle for TD (left graph) and CP (right graph).
Figure 4Examples of decomposition results of a raw sEMG signal of BB from one TD subject. (Left panel) sEMG signal and its first nine IMFs, and (right panel) corresponding power spectra of these IMFs.
Frequency ranges of first nine IMFs determined by 3dB bandwidth.
| 284–500 | 183–352 | 127–252 | 81–189 | 52–116 | 34–69 | 23–41 | 16–24 | 4–18 |
Figure 5Mean VAF values corresponding to different number of oscillation synergies.
Figure 6Oscillation synergies extracted from 8 sEMG IMFs of BB and TB during one crawling cycle in two groups. (A) BB of TD group; (B) BB of CP group; (C) TB of TD group; (D) TB of CP group.
Correlation coefficients between oscillation synergies.
| 0.968 ± 0.003 | 0.912 ± 0.015 | 0.945 ± 0.003 | 0.921 ± 0.015 | 0.929 ± 0.006 | 0.894 ± 0.015 | 0.932 ± 0.010 | 0.848 ± 0.038 | 0.927 ± 0.006 | 0.892 ± 0.011 | 0.929 ± 0.010 | 0.861 ± 0.021 | ||
| 0.896 ± 0.013 | 0.907 ± 0.014 | 0.890 ± 0.012 | 0.897 ± 0.012 | 0.860 ± 0.022 | 0.863 ± 0.011 | 0.893 ± 0.010 | 0.883 ± 0.061 | 0.877 ± 0.011 | |||||
| 0.931 ± 0.017 | 0.910 ± 0.013 | 0.961 ± 0.004 | 0.816 ± 0.053 | 0.938 ± 0.005 | 0.868 ± 0.018 | ||||||||
| 0.883 ± 0.014 | 0.822 ± 0.021 | 0.869 ± 0.011 | |||||||||||
Data were expressed as mean ± standard error.
Figure 7Comparison of recruitment coefficient curves for three sEMG oscillation synergies and their performance in every refined phase for TD and CP group during one crawling cycle. (A) BB of TD group; (B) BB of CP group; (C) TB of TD group; (D) TB of CP group. Red (C1), green (C2), and blue (C3) lines represent the recruitment coefficient curves of synergy1, synergy 2, and synergy 3, respectively.
Figure 8The mean recruitment coefficient of three oscillation synergies from BB and TB in two groups. (A) synergy 1 of BB; (B) synergy 2 of BB; (C) synergy 3 of BB; (D) synergy 1 of TB; (E) synergy 2 of TB; (F) synergy 3 of TB. *0.01 < p < 0.05, **0.005 < p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005.