Motor Unit Action Potential Duration, I: Variability of Manual and Automatic Measurements

The aim of this work is to analyze the variability in manual measurements of motor unit action potential (MUAP) duration and to evaluate the effectiveness of well-known algorithms for automatic measurement. Two electromyographists carried out three independent duration measurements of a set of 240 MUAPs. The intraexaminer and interexaminer variabilities were analyzed by means of the Gage Reproducibility and Repeatability method. The mean of the three closest manually marked positions was considered the gold standard of the duration markers positions (GSP). The results of four well-known automatic methods for estimating MUAP duration were compared to the GSP. Manual measurements of duration showed a lot of variability, with the combined intraoperator and interoperator variability greater than 30%. The greatest difference between manual positions was 11.2 ms. The mean differences between the GSP and those obtained with the four automatic methods ranged between 0.6 and 8.5 ms. Both manual and automatic measurements of MUAP duration show a high degree of variability. More precise methods are needed to improve the accuracy and reliability of the estimates of this parameter.

[1]  M. Zwarts,et al.  Determinants of motor unit action potential duration , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[2]  S. Andreassen,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Individual Motor Unit Potentials: A Proposition for Standardized Terminology and Criteria for Measurement , 1986, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[3]  A. Malanda,et al.  Baseline removal from EMG recordings , 2001, 2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  K Kunze,et al.  Turn and phase counts of individual motor unit potentials: correlation and reliability. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  E Stålberg,et al.  Quantitative motor unit potential analysis. , 1996, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[6]  L Gila,et al.  Quantification of jiggle in real electromyographic signals , 2000, Muscle & nerve.

[7]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  GAUGE CAPABILITY AND DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS. PART I: BASIC METHODS , 1993 .

[8]  M B Bromberg,et al.  A comparison of two commercial quantitative electromyographic algorithms with manual analysis , 1999, Muscle & nerve.

[9]  D Dumitru,et al.  Motor unit action potential duration and muscle length , 1999, Muscle & nerve.

[10]  I Takehara,et al.  Skill and selection bias has least influence on motor unit action potential firing rate/frequency. , 2003, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  John G. Proakis,et al.  Digital Signal Processing: Principles, Algorithms, and Applications , 1992 .

[12]  Erik Stålberg,et al.  Multi-MUP EMG analysis - a two year experience with a quantitative method in daily routine. , 1995 .

[13]  D. Montgomery,et al.  GAUGE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS. PART II: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN MODELS AND VARIANCE COMPONENT ESTIMATION , 1993 .

[14]  I Takehara,et al.  Motor unit action potential (MUAP) parameters affected by editing duration cursors. , 2004, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  S D Nandedkar,et al.  Analysis of amplitude and area of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  Z C Lateva,et al.  The physiological origin of the slow afterwave in muscle action potentials. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  E Stålberg,et al.  Reference values of motor unit action potentials obtained with multi‐MUAP analysis , 1994, Muscle & nerve.

[18]  Itaru Takehara,et al.  Reliability of quantitative motor unit action potential parameters , 2004, Muscle & nerve.