Comparison of single-fiber and macro electrode recordings: Relationship to motor unit action potential duration

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 1381-1388

  Dumitru, Daniel ^a   King, John C ^a   Nandedkar, Sanjeev D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^b TECA Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Macroelectromyography; Motor unit action potential; Muscle action potential; Muscle fiber duration; Single fiber electromyography

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; ARTICLE; BICEPS BRACHII MUSCLE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEMBRANE CONDUCTANCE; MEMBRANE POTENTIAL; MOTOR UNIT POTENTIAL; MUSCLE ACTION POTENTIAL; MUSCLE CELL; NERVE ENDING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; ELECTRODES; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOREARM; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCLE FIBERS; MUSCLES; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0030766829     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199711)20:11<1381::AID-MUS5>3.0.CO;2-6     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Andreassen S, Rosenfalck A: Relationship of intracellular and extracellular action potentials of skeletal muscle. CRC Crit Rev Bioeng 1981;6:267-306.
2. Aquilonius S-M, Askmark H, Gillberg P-G, Nandedkar S, Olsson Y, Stalberg E: Topographical localization of motor endplates in cryosections of whole human muscles. Muscle Nerve 1984;7:287-293.
3. Barkhaus PE, Nandedkar SD: On the selection of concentric needle electromyogram motor unit action potentials: is the rise time criteria too restrictive. Muscle Nerve 1996;19:1554-1560.
4. Bischoff C, Stalberg EV, Falck B, Edenbol K, Olofson E: Reference values of motor unit action potentials obtained with multi-MUAP analysis. Muscle Nerve 1994;17:842-851.
5. Buchthal F, Guld C, Rosenfalck P: Action potential parameters in normal human muscle and their dependence on physical variables. Acta Physiol Scand 1954;32:200-218.
6. Buchthal F, Guld C, Rosenfalck P: Innervation zone and propagation velocity in human muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 1955;35:174-190.
7. Buchthal F: Electromyography, in Redmond A (ed): Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1976, pp 16B:80-102.
8. Buchthal F, Schmalbruch H: Motor unit of mammalian muscle. Physiol Rev 1980;60:90-142.
9. Buchthal F: Electromyography in evaluation of muscle diseases, in Aminoff MJ (ed): Neurology Clinics. Philadephia, Saunders, vol 3, 1985, pp 573-598.
10. Chan RC, Hsu TC: Quantitative comparison of motor unit potential parameters between monopolar and concentric needles. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:1028-1032.
11. Christensen E: Topography of terminal motor innervation in striated muscles from stillborn infants. Am J Phys Med 1959;38:17-30.
12. Chu J, Chan RC, Bruyninckx F: Effects of the EMG amplifier filter settings on the motor unit action potential parameters recorded with concentric and monopolar needles. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986;26:627-639.
13. Dumitru D: Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Philadelphia, Hanley & Belfus, 1995.
14. Ekstedt J, Stalberg E: How the size of the needle electrode leading-off surface influences the shape of the single muscle fibre action potential in electromyography. Comp Prog Biomed 1973;3:204-212.
15. Falck B, Stalberg E, Bischoff C: Influence of recording site within the muscle on motor unit potentials. Muscle Nerve 1995;18:1385-1389.