4.2 Review

Influence of motor unit properties on the size of the simulated evoked surface EMG potential

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 37-49

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-0126-7

关键词

electromyogram; hand; model; compound muscle action potential

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG09000] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS42734] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the study was to quantify the influence of selected motor unit properties on the simulated amplitude and area of evoked muscle potentials detected at the skin surface. The study was restricted to a motor unit population simulating a hand muscle whose potentials were recorded on the skin over the muscle. Peak-to-peak amplitude and area of the evoked potential were calculated from the summed motor unit potentials and compared across conditions that simulated variation in different motor unit properties. The simulations involved varying the number of activated motor units, muscle fiber conduction velocities, axonal conduction velocities, neuronal activation times, the shape of the intracellular action potential, and recording configurations commonly used over hand muscles. The results obtained for the default condition simulated in this study indicated that similar to 7% of the motor unit potentials were responsible for 50% of the size of the evoked potential. Variation in the amplitude and area of the evoked muscle potential was directly related to the number of active motor units only when the stimulus activated motor units randomly, and not when activation was based on a parameter such as motor unit size. Independent adjustments in motor unit properties had variable effects on the size of the evoked muscle potential, including when the stimulus activated only a subpopulation of motor units. These results provide reference information that can be used to assist in the interpretation of experimentally observed changes in the size of evoked muscle potentials.

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

4.2
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