4.6 Article

Within-subject reliability of motor unit number estimates and quantitative motor unit analysis in a distal and proximal upper limb muscle

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 3, Pages 596-603

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.10.021

Keywords

motor unit number estimation; quantitative EMG; reliability; electromyography; motor unit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To establish within-subject reliability of motor unit number estimates (MUNEs) and quantitative MU analysis using decomposition-based quantitative electromyography (DQEMG). Methods: Following the acquisition of a maximum M-wave, needle and surface-detected EMG signals were collected during contractions of the first dorsal interrosseous (FDI) and biceps brachii (1313). DQEMG was used to extract motor unit potential (MUP) trains and surface-detected MUPs associated with each train, the mean size of which was divided into the maximum M-wave to obtain a MUNE. Retests were performed following the initial test to evaluate reliability. Results: Subjects test-retest MUNEs were highly correlated (r=0.72 FDI; 0.97 1313) with no significant differences between test and retest MUNE values (P > 0.10). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated to establish the range of expected retest MUNE variability and were +/- 41 MUs for the FDI and BB. Quantitative information pertaining to MU size, complexity and firing rate were similar for both tests. Conclusion: MUNEs and quantitative MU data can be obtained reliably from the BB and FDI using DQEMG in individual subjects. Significance: Establishing within-subject reliability of MUNEs and quantitative MU analysis allow clinicians to longitudinally follow changes in the MU pool of individuals with disorders of the central or peripheral nervous system in addition to assessing their response to treatments. (c) 2005 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available