4.6 Article

Dystonic neck muscles show a shift in relative autospectral power during isometric contractions

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 128, 期 10, 页码 1937-1945

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.258

关键词

Cumulative distribution function; Isometric contraction; Autospectrum; EMG; Cervical dystonia

资金

  1. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation
  2. Dutch Technology Foundation STW, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [STW10736]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify effects of a deviant motor drive in the autospectral power of dystonic muscles during voluntary contraction in cervical dystonia patients.& para;& para;Methods: Submaximal (20%) isometric head-neck tasks were performed with the head fixed, measuring surface EMG of the sternocleidomastoid, splenius capitis and semispinalis capitis in CD patients and controls. Autospectral power of muscle activity, and head forces was analyzed using cumulative distribution functions (CDF). A downward shift between the theta/low alpha-band (3-10 H z) and the high alpha/beta-band (10-30 Hz) was detected using the CDF10, defined as the cumulative power from 3 to 10 Hz relative to power from 3 to 30 Hz.& para;& para;Results: CDF10 was increased in dystonic muscles compared to controls and patient muscles unaffected by dystonia, due to a 3-10 Hz power increase and a 10-30 Hz decrease. CDF10 also increased in patient head forces.& para;& para;Conclusions: Submaximal isometric contractions with the head fixed provided a well-defined test condition minimizing effects of reflexive feedback and tremor. We associate shifts in autospectral power with prokinetic sensorimotor control.& para;& para;Significance: Analysis of autospectral power in isometric tasks with the head fixed is a promising approach in research and diagnostics of cervical dystonia. (C) 2017 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据