Cross talk in surface electromyograms of human hamstring muscles

Signals generated from muscles other than the muscle(s) of interest (cross talk) can confound the interpretation of surface electromyograms (EMGs). In this study, the amount of cross talk in surface EMGs of human hamstring muscles was estimated using a protocol in which the quadriceps femoris was electrically stimulated via the femoral nerve. EMGs were recorded from the vastus lateralis and the medial and lateral hamstring muscle groups. The amplitude of the EMG response of the vastus lateralis to electrical stimulation was adjusted to match that of its maximum voluntary effort (MVE) under isometric conditions. Subsequent power density spectrum analysis showed that the median frequencies of the signals generated by electrical stimulation and MVE were not significantly different. In conventional bipolar recordings, cross talk in lateral hamstring EMGs averaged 17.1% MVE and in medial hamstring EMGs 11.3% MVE (average‐rectified values). The double differential technique significantly reduced cross talk to 7.6% MVE for the lateral hamstrings, and to 4.2% MVE for the medial hamstrings. The double differential technique appears to be more selective than the bipolar technique when recording EMGs from muscles with highly active neighbors and thus should be used in such situations. Software simulations of the double differential technique also appear to be more selective than the bipolar technique and may be used when the number of amplifiers available is limited.

[1]  Joan Helland,et al.  The practical statistician: Simplified handbook of statistics. , 1975 .

[2]  K. R. Campbell,et al.  Electromyographic study of the anterior cruciate ligament–hamstrings synergy during isometric knee extension , 1989, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[3]  Roger M. Enoka,et al.  Muscle Strength and Its Development , 1988, Sports medicine.

[4]  E Henneman,et al.  Quantitative measures of output of a motoneuron pool during monosynaptic reflexes. , 1974, Journal of Neurophysiology.

[5]  D. Winter,et al.  Predictions of knee and ankle moments of force in walking from EMG and kinematic data. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  A. Hof,et al.  Comparison between EMG to force processing and kinetic analysis for the calf muscle moment in walking and stepping. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  R. Norman,et al.  1986 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: Partitioning of the L4 - L5 Dynamic Moment into Disc, Ligamentous, and Muscular Components During Lifting , 1986, Spine.

[8]  A. Kralj,et al.  Coactivation of the hamstrings and quadriceps during extension of the knee. , 1989, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[10]  C. D. De Luca,et al.  Surface myoelectric signal cross-talk among muscles of the leg. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  R. D'ambrosia,et al.  Muscular coactivation , 1988, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  Carlo J. De Luca,et al.  A Note on the Noninvasive Estimation of Muscle Fiber Conduction Velocity , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[13]  R. D'ambrosia,et al.  The synergistic action of the anterior cruciate ligament and thigh muscles in maintaining joint stability , 1987, The American journal of sports medicine.