A simple test of muscle coactivation estimation using electromyography

In numerous motor tasks, muscles around a joint act coactively to generate opposite torques. A variety of indexes based on electromyography signals have been presented in the literature to quantify muscle coactivation. However, it is not known how to estimate it reliably using such indexes. The goal of this study was to test the reliability of the estimation of muscle coactivation using electromyography. Isometric coactivation was obtained at various muscle activation levels. For this task, any coactivation measurement/index should present the maximal score (100% of coactivation). Two coactivation indexes were applied. In the first, the antagonistic muscle activity (the lower electromyographic signal between two muscles that generate opposite joint torques) is divided by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations. In the second, the ratio between antagonistic and agonistic muscle activation is calculated. Moreover, we computed these indexes considering different electromyographic amplitude normalization procedures. It was found that the first algorithm, with all signals normalized by their respective maximal voluntary coactivation, generates the index closest to the true value (100%), reaching 92 ± 6%. In contrast, the coactivation index value was 82 ± 12% when the second algorithm was applied and the electromyographic signal was not normalized (P < 0.04). The new finding of the present study is that muscle coactivation is more reliably estimated if the EMG signals are normalized by their respective maximal voluntary contraction obtained during maximal coactivation prior to dividing the antagonistic muscle activity by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations.

[1]  O. Bar-or,et al.  Cocontraction in three age groups of children during treadmill locomotion. , 1997, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[2]  N. Hogan Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles , 1984 .

[3]  C. M. Wiles,et al.  Co-activation: its association with weakness and specific neurological pathology , 2006, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[4]  O. Bar-or,et al.  Cocontraction and phasic activity during GAIT in children with cerebral palsy. , 1996, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  Terese L. Chmielewski,et al.  Perturbation-enhanced neuromuscular training alters muscle activity in female athletes , 2005, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[6]  J J Collins,et al.  The redundant nature of locomotor optimization laws. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  J. Chae,et al.  Muscle Weakness and Cocontraction in Upper Limb Hemiparesis: Relationship to Motor Impairment and Physical Disability , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  C. Ingersoll,et al.  An electromyographic comparison of 4 closed chain exercises. , 1999, Journal of athletic training.

[9]  E. Barbosa,et al.  Botulinum toxin for treatment of cocontractions related to obstetrical brachial plexopathy. , 2005, Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria.

[10]  G. Loeb,et al.  Effect of velocity and mechanical history on the forces of motor units in the cat medial gastrocnemius muscle. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  H. Kabat,et al.  Cocontraction and reciprocal innervation in voluntary movement in man. , 1952, Science.

[12]  L. Osternig,et al.  Co-activation of sprinter and distance runner muscles in isokinetic exercise. , 1986, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  D. Felsenberg,et al.  Superficial Lumbopelvic Muscle Overactivity and Decreased Cocontraction After 8 Weeks of Bed Rest , 2007, Spine.

[14]  C. Richards,et al.  Coactivation during gait as an adaptive behavior after stroke. , 2000, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[15]  K P Granata,et al.  Muscle force production and functional performance in spastic cerebral palsy: relationship of cocontraction. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  D. Winter,et al.  Quantitative assessment of co-contraction at the ankle joint in walking. , 1985, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  N. Benjuya,et al.  Aging-induced shifts from a reliance on sensory input to muscle cocontraction during balanced standing. , 2004, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[18]  E. Kellis,et al.  Muscle co-activation around the knee in drop jumping using the co-contraction index. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[19]  M. J. Trotter,et al.  Co-contraction in the hemiparetic forearm: quantitative EMG evaluation. , 1988, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  A. Macaluso,et al.  Contractile muscle volume and agonist‐antagonist coactivation account for differences in torque between young and older women , 2002, Muscle & nerve.

[21]  L. Arendt-Nielsen,et al.  The effect of muscle pain on elbow flexion and coactivation tasks , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.