Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Site Tools

  • AAAS
  • Subscribe
  • Feedback

Site Search

Search Advanced

Science 14 November 1980:
Vol. 210. no. 4471, pp. 795 - 797
DOI: 10.1126/science.7433997
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Articles

Science, Vol 210, Issue 4471, 795-797
Copyright © 1980 by American Association for the Advancement of Science

articles

Electromyograms are repeatable: precautions and limitations

C Gans and GC Gorniak

Electromyograms recorded by bipolar, fine wire electrodes placed into anatomically equivalent sites in skeletal muscles of vertebrates are repeatable when the animals use the muscles in a similar way. Repeatability applies to the number of spikes recorded from a given site and to their average amplitude as well as to the root-mean-square value, though the values obtained for these descriptors differ among muscles, and perhaps fascicles, of particular animals even when the animals are performing equivalent actions. Tests suggest that these results are not affected by the nature of most kinds of recording equipment. Also, substantial differences in electrode tip configuration and wire diameter induce relatively minor, less than 8 percent, differences in electrode resistance and impedance. Doubling the length of the fine wire leads produces less than an 8 percent (15 percent when the length is tripled) effect; however, the effect of electrode material may be as much as 85 percent in resistance and 20 percent in impedance. Reports of nonreproducibility or variability of electromyograms apparently result mainly from anatomically inexact placement into physiologically and histochemically different fascicles of compound muscles, from recordings of muscles that are active at very low levels, and perhaps from comparison among recordings of muscles that really differ in their activity level.


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Patterns of variation across primates in jaw-muscle electromyography during mastication.
C. J. Vinyard, C. E. Wall, S. H. Williams, and W. L. Hylander (2008)
Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 294-311
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Visual and non-visual control of landing movements in humans.
M. Santello, M. J N McDonagh, and J. H Challis (2001)
J. Physiol. 537, 313-327
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Epaxial muscle function in trotting dogs.
D. A. Ritter, P. N. Nassar, M. Fife, and D. R. Carrier (2001)
J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3053-3064
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
The mechanics of prey prehension in chameleons.
A Herrel, J. Meyers, P Aerts, and K. Nishikawa (2000)
J. Exp. Biol. 203, 3255-3263
   Abstract »    PDF »
Evolution of complexity in motor patterns and jaw musculature of tetraodontiform fishes.
J. Friel and P. Wainwright (1999)
J. Exp. Biol. 202, 867-880
   Abstract »    PDF »
Shivering thermogenesis in the pigeon: the effects of activity, diurnal factors, and feeding state.
E. Hohtola, R. P. Henderson, and M. E. Rashotte (1998)
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol 275, R1553-R1562
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)