4.3 Review

Detecting fatigue thresholds from electromyographic signals: A systematic review on approaches and methodologies

Journal

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue -, Pages 216-230

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.08.002

Keywords

Electromyographic threshold; Muscular fatigue; Aerobic-anaerobic transition; Cycling ergometer; Incremental exercise; Constant workload; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the current paper was to systematically review the relevant existing electromyographic threshold concepts within the literature. The electronic databases MEDLINE and SCOPUS were screened for papers published between January 1980 and April 2015 including the keywords: neuromuscular fatigue threshold, anaerobic threshold, electromyographic threshold, muscular fatigue, aerobicanaerobictransition, ventilatory threshold, exercise testing, and cycle-ergometer. 32 articles were assessed with regard to their electromyographic methodologies, description of results, statistical analysis and test protocols. Only one article was of very good quality. 21 were of good quality and two articles were of very low quality. The review process revealed that: (i) there is consistent evidence of one or two non-linear increases of EMG that might reflect the additional recruitment of motor units (MU) or different fiber types during fatiguing cycle ergometer exercise, (ii) most studies reported no statistically significant difference between electromyographic and metabolic thresholds, (iii) one minute protocols with increments between 10 and 25 W appear most appropriate to detect muscular threshold, (iv) threshold detection from the vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris is recommended, and (v) there is a great variety in study protocols, measurement techniques, and data processing. Therefore, we recommend further research and standardization in the detection of EMGTs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available