EMG-force relationship during static contraction: Effects on sensor placement locations on biceps brachii muscle
BACKGROUND: The relationship between surface electromyography (EMG) and force have been the subject of ongoing investigations and remain a subject of controversy. Even under static conditions, the relationships at different sensor placement locations in the biceps brachii (BB) muscle are complex.OBJ...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOS Press
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/7752/1/Article_Nizam.docx http://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/7752/ http://iospress.metapress.com/content/j18645234854tp05/?p=39edaff856d448bfb927e022b6b83be5&pi=0 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | BACKGROUND: The relationship between surface electromyography (EMG) and force have been the subject of ongoing investigations and remain a subject of controversy. Even under static conditions, the relationships at different sensor placement locations in the biceps brachii (BB) muscle are complex.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the activity and relationship between surface EMG and static force from the BB muscle in terms of three sensor placement locations. METHODS: Twenty-one right hand dominant male subjects (age 25.3 ± 1.2 years) participated in the study. Surface EMG signals were detected from the subject's right BB muscle. The muscle activation during force was determined as the root mean square (RMS) electromyographic signal normalized to the peak RMS EMG signal of isometric contraction for 10 s. The statistical analysis included linear regression to examine the relationship between EMG amplitude and force of contraction [40–100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)], repeated measures ANOVA to assess differences among the sensor placement locations, and coefficient of variation (CoV) for muscle activity variation.RESULTS: The results demonstrated that when the sensor was placed on the muscle belly, the linear slope coefficient was significantly greater for EMG versus force testing (r^2= 0.62, P < 0.05) than when placed on the lower part (r^2= 0.31, P> 0.05) and upper part of the muscle belly (r^2= 0.29, P< 0.05). In addition, the EMG signal activity on the muscle belly had less variability than the upper and lower parts (8.55% vs. 15.12% and 12.86%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: These findings indicate the importance of applying the surface EMG sensor at the appropriate locations that follow muscle fiber orientation of the BB muscle during static contraction. As a result, EMG signals of three different placements may help to understand the difference in the amplitude of the signals due to placement. |
|---|