↓ Skip to main content

A simple test of muscle coactivation estimation using electromyography

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
A simple test of muscle coactivation estimation using electromyography
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, October 2012
DOI 10.1590/s0100-879x2012007500092
Pubmed ID
Authors

U.F. Ervilha, T. Graven-Nielsen, M. Duarte

Abstract

In numerous motor tasks, muscles around a joint act coactively to generate opposite torques. A variety of indexes based on electromyography signals have been presented in the literature to quantify muscle coactivation. However, it is not known how to estimate it reliably using such indexes. The goal of this study was to test the reliability of the estimation of muscle coactivation using electromyography. Isometric coactivation was obtained at various muscle activation levels. For this task, any coactivation measurement/index should present the maximal score (100% of coactivation). Two coactivation indexes were applied. In the first, the antagonistic muscle activity (the lower electromyographic signal between two muscles that generate opposite joint torques) is divided by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations. In the second, the ratio between antagonistic and agonistic muscle activation is calculated. Moreover, we computed these indexes considering different electromyographic amplitude normalization procedures. It was found that the first algorithm, with all signals normalized by their respective maximal voluntary coactivation, generates the index closest to the true value (100%), reaching 92 ± 6%. In contrast, the coactivation index value was 82 ± 12% when the second algorithm was applied and the electromyographic signal was not normalized (P < 0.04). The new finding of the present study is that muscle coactivation is more reliably estimated if the EMG signals are normalized by their respective maximal voluntary contraction obtained during maximal coactivation prior to dividing the antagonistic muscle activity by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 19%
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 15%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 34 19%
Sports and Recreations 30 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 32 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,240,428
of 19,215,644 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#133
of 548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,029
of 278,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,215,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 278,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them