Jennifer A Zellers1, Sheridan Parker2, Adam Marmon1, Karin Grävare Silbernagel3. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, 540 S. College Ave, Newark, DE 19713, USA. 2. Department of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6160 University Drive South, Omaha, NE 68182, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 540 S. College Ave, Newark, DE 19713, USA. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, 540 S. College Ave, Newark, DE 19713, USA; Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Ave, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA. Electronic address: kgs@udel.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electromyography signal amplitude is influenced by a variety of factors. Normalization strategies aimed at decreasing signal variability include using peak electromyography signal during a maximum voluntary contraction and peak-to-peak M-wave amplitude. However, whether these normalization methods are comparable has not been investigated in injured populations. This study investigated the relationship between peak signal during maximum voluntary contraction and M-wave amplitude in individuals with a unilateral Achilles tendon rupture. Secondarily, we observed whether the two normalizations strategies would yield similar results when evaluating between limb differences in muscle activity during a jump task. METHODS: Eleven individuals 1-3 years after a unilateral Achilles tendon rupture were included in this study. Surface electromyography was used on the medial and lateral gastrocnemii bilaterally. Peak maximum voluntary contraction, M-wave amplitude, and electromyography during a jumping task were collected. FINDINGS: A strong relationship was observed between peak maximum voluntary contraction and M-wave amplitude on the uninjured (r = 0.71-0.88, P < 0.05) but not on the ruptured side (r = 0.41-0.44, P > 0.05). The two normalization techniques did not produce different results when comparing the uninjured and ruptured sides. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that M-wave normalization yields similar results as peak maximum voluntary contraction-normalized electromyography in uninjured conditions. M-wave normalization may be a useful strategy in an injured population where a maximal muscle contraction is unsafe or impaired.
BACKGROUND: Electromyography signal amplitude is influenced by a variety of factors. Normalization strategies aimed at decreasing signal variability include using peak electromyography signal during a maximum voluntary contraction and peak-to-peak M-wave amplitude. However, whether these normalization methods are comparable has not been investigated in injured populations. This study investigated the relationship between peak signal during maximum voluntary contraction and M-wave amplitude in individuals with a unilateral Achilles tendon rupture. Secondarily, we observed whether the two normalizations strategies would yield similar results when evaluating between limb differences in muscle activity during a jump task. METHODS: Eleven individuals 1-3 years after a unilateral Achilles tendon rupture were included in this study. Surface electromyography was used on the medial and lateral gastrocnemii bilaterally. Peak maximum voluntary contraction, M-wave amplitude, and electromyography during a jumping task were collected. FINDINGS: A strong relationship was observed between peak maximum voluntary contraction and M-wave amplitude on the uninjured (r = 0.71-0.88, P < 0.05) but not on the ruptured side (r = 0.41-0.44, P > 0.05). The two normalization techniques did not produce different results when comparing the uninjured and ruptured sides. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that M-wave normalization yields similar results as peak maximum voluntary contraction-normalized electromyography in uninjured conditions. M-wave normalization may be a useful strategy in an injured population where a maximal muscle contraction is unsafe or impaired.
Authors: Juuso Heikkinen; Iikka Lantto; Tapio Flinkkila; Pasi Ohtonen; Jaakko Niinimaki; Pertti Siira; Vesa Laine; Juhana Leppilahti Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Ryan L Mizner; Stephanie C Petterson; Jennifer E Stevens; Krista Vandenborne; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Katarina Nilsson-Helander; Roland Thomeé; Karin Grävare Silbernagel; Karin Grävare-Silbernagel; Pia Thomeé; Eva Faxén; Bengt I Eriksson; Jon Karlsson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Azadeh Kian; Giwantha Widanapathirana; Anna M Joseph; Daniel T H Lai; Rezaul Begg Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.576