Single motor unit analysis from spatially filtered surface electromyogram signals. Part I: Spatial selectivity

The aim of the study was to compare experimentally, on the basis of single motor unit (MU) activities, the selectivity of different spatial filters commonly used to detect surface electromyogram (EMG) signals. Surface EMG signals were recorded from the biceps brachii and the upper trapezius muscle of five subjects using a two-dimensional (2D) electrode array consisting of 16 pin electrodes. The subjects performed isometric contractions at different elbow angles and shoulder abduction and flexion. The same monopolar surface EMG signals were filtered using longitudinal single and double differential, transverse single and double differential and normal double differential filters. From the single MU action potentials, extracted by automatic EMG decomposition, indexes of transverse (perpendicular with respect to the fibre direction) and longitudinal (along the fibre direction) selectivity were computed. The number of detected MUs was 48 for the upper trapezius, with the arms held in the sagittal plane, and 52 when the arms were held in the frontal plane; 85 MUs were identified from the biceps brachii contractions. The results showed that transverse selectivity was significantly higher for the 2D and transverse onedimensional (1D) filters with respect to the 1D longitudinal filters, whereas longitudinal selectivity was higher (i.e. MU action potentials were shorter) for the 2D filter and the longitudinal double differential filter. In particular, the relative attenuation of potential amplitude moving 5 mm from the source was, on average (for the two muscles), 16.5% for the least selective filter in the transverse direction (longitudinal single differential) and 35.7% for the most selective one in the same direction (transverse double differential). The MU action potential duration was, on average, 13.8 ms for the most selective filter in the longitudinal direction (longitudinal double differential) and 18.7 ms for the least selective one (transverse double differential). The normal double differential filter resulted in spatial selectivity indexes that were not statistically different in the two directions from those of the best filters in each direction.

[1]  Dario Farina,et al.  Standardising surface electromyogram recordings for assessment of activity and fatigue in the human upper trapezius muscle , 2002, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[2]  D. Dumitru,et al.  Far‐field potentials in muscle , 1991, Muscle & nerve.

[3]  H. Schwan,et al.  Biological Engineering , 1970 .

[4]  Dario Farina,et al.  Surface EMG crosstalk between knee extensor muscles: Experimental and model results , 2002, Muscle & nerve.

[5]  G. Dimitrov,et al.  Length of the summated depolarized area and duration of the depolarizing and repolarizing processes in the motor unit under different conditions. , 1979, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  Motor unit recruitment strategies investigated by surface EMG variables. , 2002, Journal of applied physiology.

[7]  G. Rau,et al.  Estimation of the relationship between the noninvasively detected activity of single motor units and their characteristic pathological changes by modelling. , 1998, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[8]  Wee As,et al.  Volume-conducted or "far-field" compound action potentials originating from the intrinsic-hand muscles. , 1990 .

[9]  R. A. Ashley,et al.  Volume-conducted or "far-field" compound action potentials originating from the intrinsic-hand muscles. , 1990, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  D L Jewett,et al.  Far‐field potentials , 1993, Muscle & nerve.

[11]  D Farina,et al.  Compensation of the effect of sub-cutaneous tissue layers on surface EMG: a simulation study. , 1999, Medical engineering & physics.

[12]  Dario Farina,et al.  Influence of anatomical, physical, and detection-system parameters on surface EMG , 2002, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  C. Disselhorst-Klug,et al.  Improvement of spatial resolution in surface-EMG: a theoretical and experimental comparison of different spatial filters , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  G Rau,et al.  Noninvasive approach to motor unit characterization: muscle structure, membrane dynamics and neuronal control. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  C. Disselhorst-Klug,et al.  Principles of high-spatial-resolution surface EMG (HSR-EMG): single motor unit detection and application in the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. , 1997, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[16]  D. Farina,et al.  Single motor unit analysis from spatially filtered surface electromyogram signals. Part 2: Conduction velocity estimation , 2003, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[17]  G Rau,et al.  Non-invasive detection of the single motor unit action potential by averaging the spatial potential distribution triggered on a spatially filtered motor unit action potential. , 1999, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[18]  G Rau,et al.  Clinical application of a noninvasive multi-electrode array EMG for the recording of single motor unit activity. , 1993, Neuropediatrics.

[19]  Jiri Silny,et al.  Spatial Filtering of Noninvasive Multielectrode EMG: Part I-Introduction to Measuring Technique and Applications , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  T. Masuda,et al.  A surface electrode array for detecting action potential trains of single motor units. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[21]  Dario Farina,et al.  Concentric-ring electrode systems for noninvasive detection of single motor unit activity , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  E. Clifford The state of what art? , 1988, The Cleft palate journal.

[23]  C. Jensen,et al.  The influence of electrode position on bipolar surface electromyogram recordings of the upper trapezius muscle , 2004, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[24]  D. Stegeman,et al.  The motor unit potential distribution over the skin surface and its use in estimating the motor unit location. , 1997, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[25]  R Merletti,et al.  Non-invasive assessment of motor unit properties with linear electrode arrays. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[26]  Jiri Silny,et al.  Spatial Filtering of Noninvasive Multielectrode EMG: Part II-Filter Performance in Theory and Modeling , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  C. Disselhorst-Klug,et al.  Non-invasive approach of motor unit recording during muscle contractions in humans , 2000, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[28]  Jiri Silny,et al.  Diagnostic yield of noninvasive high spatial resolution electromyography in neuromuscular diseases , 1997, Muscle & nerve.

[29]  P. Griffin,et al.  Physical processes associated with the deactivation of dopants in laser annealed silicon , 2002 .