Literature DB >> 32569878

Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix.

Manuela Besomi1, Paul W Hodges2, Edward A Clancy3, Jaap Van Dieën4, François Hug5, Madeleine Lowery6, Roberto Merletti7, Karen Søgaard8, Tim Wrigley9, Thor Besier10, Richard G Carson11, Catherine Disselhorst-Klug12, Roger M Enoka13, Deborah Falla14, Dario Farina15, Simon Gandevia16, Aleš Holobar17, Matthew C Kiernan18, Kevin McGill19, Eric Perreault20, John C Rothwell21, Kylie Tucker22.   

Abstract

The general purpose of normalization of EMG amplitude is to enable comparisons between participants, muscles, measurement sessions or electrode positions. Normalization is necessary to reduce the impact of differences in physiological and anatomical characteristics of muscles and surrounding tissues. Normalization of the EMG amplitude provides information about the magnitude of muscle activation relative to a reference value. It is essential to select an appropriate method for normalization with specific reference to how the EMG signal will be interpreted, and to consider how the normalized EMG amplitude may change when interpreting it under specific conditions. This matrix, developed by the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, presents six approaches to EMG normalization: (1) Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in same task/context as the task of interest, (2) Standardized isometric MVC (which is not necessarily matched to the contraction type in the task of interest), (3) Standardized submaximal task (isometric/dynamic) that can be task-specific, (4) Peak/mean EMG amplitude in task, (5) Non-normalized, and (6) Maximal M-wave. General considerations for normalization, features that should be reported, definitions, and "pros and cons" of each normalization approach are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific experimental contexts, along with an explanation of the factors that determine the suitability of a method, and frequently asked questions. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting, reporting and interpreting EMG amplitude data.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amplitude normalization; Consensus; Electromyography; Muscle activation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32569878     DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol        ISSN: 1050-6411            Impact factor:   2.368


  35 in total

Review 1.  How to improve the muscle synergy analysis methodology?

Authors:  Nicolas A Turpin; Stéphane Uriac; Georges Dalleau
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Fatigability of the knee extensors following high- and low-load resistance exercise sessions in trained men.

Authors:  Paul W Marshall; Thomas Forward; Roger M Enoka
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Assisting Forearm Function in Children With Movement Disorders via A Soft Wearable Robot With Equilibrium-Point Control.

Authors:  Jonathan Realmuto; Terence D Sanger
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2022-06-15

Review 4.  Fundamental Concepts of Bipolar and High-Density Surface EMG Understanding and Teaching for Clinical, Occupational, and Sport Applications: Origin, Detection, and Main Errors.

Authors:  Isabella Campanini; Andrea Merlo; Catherine Disselhorst-Klug; Luca Mesin; Silvia Muceli; Roberto Merletti
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.847

5.  Revealing the unique features of each individual's muscle activation signatures.

Authors:  Jeroen Aeles; Fabian Horst; Sebastian Lapuschkin; Lilian Lacourpaille; François Hug
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Influence of Feet Position and Execution Velocity on Muscle Activation and Kinematic Parameters During the Inclined Leg Press Exercise.

Authors:  Isabel Martín-Fuentes; José M Oliva-Lozano; José M Muyor
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 4.355

7.  Superficial lumbar muscle recruitment strategies to control the trunk with delayed-onset muscle soreness.

Authors:  Jacques Abboud; Arianne Lessard; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-06-06       Impact factor: 3.078

8.  Older Compared With Younger Adults Performed 467 Fewer Sit-to-Stand Trials, Accompanied by Small Changes in Muscle Activation and Voluntary Force.

Authors:  Paulo Cezar Rocha Dos Santos; Claudine J C Lamoth; Lilian Teresa Bucken Gobbi; Inge Zijdewind; Fabio Augusto Barbieri; Tibor Hortobágyi
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 5.750

9.  Similar sensorimotor transformations control balance during standing and walking.

Authors:  Maarten Afschrift; Friedl De Groote; Ilse Jonkers
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Effects of trunk anterior tilt and knee joint flexion angle changes on muscle activity in the lower limb muscles.

Authors:  Hideaki Muraoka; Toshiaki Suzuki
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2021-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.