↓ Skip to main content

Intermuscular Coherence Between Surface EMG Signals Is Higher for Monopolar Compared to Bipolar Electrode Configurations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intermuscular Coherence Between Surface EMG Signals Is Higher for Monopolar Compared to Bipolar Electrode Configurations
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maurice Mohr, Tanja Schön, Vinzenz von Tscharner, Benno M. Nigg

Abstract

Introduction: The vasti muscles have to work in concert to control knee joint motion during movements like walking, running, or squatting. Coherence analysis between surface electromyography (EMG) signals is a common technique to study muscle synchronization during such movements and gain insight into strategies of the central nervous system to optimize neuromuscular performance. However, different assessment methods related to EMG data acquisition, e.g., different electrode configurations or amplifier technologies, have produced inconsistent observations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of different EMG acquisition techniques (monopolar vs. bipolar electrode configuration, potential vs. current amplifier) on the magnitude, reliability, and sensitivity of intermuscular coherence between two vasti muscles during stable and unstable squatting exercises. Methods: Surface EMG signals from vastus lateralis (VL) and medialis (VM) were obtained from eighteen adults while performing series of stable und unstable bipedal squats. The EMG signals were acquired using three different recording techniques: (1) Bipolar with a potential amplifier, (2) monopolar with a potential amplifier, and (3) monopolar electrodes with a current amplifier. VL-VM coherence between the respective raw EMG signals was determined during two trials of stable squatting and one trial of unstable squatting to compare the coherence magnitude, reliability, and sensitivity between EMG recording techniques. Results: VL-VM coherence was about twice as high for monopolar recordings compared to bipolar recordings for all squatting exercises while coherence was similar between monopolar potential and current recordings. Reliability measures were comparable between recording systems while the sensitivity to an increase in intermuscular coherence during unstable vs. stable squatting was lowest for the monopolar potential system. Discussion and Conclusion: The choice of electrode configuration can have a significant effect on the magnitude of EMG-EMG coherence, which may explain previous inconsistencies in the literature. A simple simulation of cross-talk could not explain the large differences in intermuscular coherence. It is speculated that inevitable errors in the alignment of the bipolar electrodes with the muscle fiber direction leads to a reduction of information content in the differential EMG signals and subsequently to a lower resolution for the detection of intermuscular coherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 30 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 23 23%
Neuroscience 10 10%
Sports and Recreations 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 39 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,978,863
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,275
of 13,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,460
of 328,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#255
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.