Concentric and single fiber electrode spatial recording characteristics

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 1997, Pages 1525-1533

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

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

^b TECA Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Concentric; Electrode modeling; Electrodes; Electrodiagnosis; Instrumentation; Motor unit action potential; Single fiber

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ARTICLE; CANNULATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; ELECTROMYOGRAM; MOTOR UNIT; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS;

ANIMALS; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NERVE FIBERS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0030774089     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199712)20:12<1525::AID-MUS7>3.0.CO;2-A     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adrian ED, Bronk DW: The discharge of impulses in motor nerve fibers. The frequency of discharges in reflex and voluntary contractions. J Physiol 1929;67:119-151.
2. Biro G, Partridge LD: Analysis of multiunit spike records. J Appl Physiol 1971;30:521-526.
3. Brandstater ME, Lambert EH: Motor unit anatomy, in Desmedt JE (ed): New Concepts of the Motor Unit Neuromuscular Disorders Electromyographic Kinesiology. New York, Karger, 1973, p. 18.
4. Brown WF: Electromyography: normal, in Brown WF (ed): The Physiological and Technical Basis of Electromyography. Boston, Butterworth, 1984, pp. 287-317.
5. Buchthal F, Guld C, Rosenfalk P: Multielectrode study of the territory of a motor unit. Acta Physiol Scand 1957;39:83-104.
6. Buchthal F, Pinelli P: Muscle action potentials in polymyositis. Neurology 1953;3:424-436.
7. Chan RC, Hsu TC: Quantitative comparison of motor unit potential parameters between monopolar and concentric needles. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:1028-1032.
8. 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.
9. Chu J, Chan RC, Bruyninckx F: Progressive teflon denudation of the monopolar needle: effects on motor unit potential parameters. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987;68:36-40.
10. Dorfman LJ, McGill KC, Cummins KL: Electrical properties of commercial concentric EMG electrodes. Muscle Nerve 1985;8: 1-8.
11. Dumitru D: Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Philadelphia, Hanley and Belfus, 1995, p. 70.
12. Dumitru D, King JC: Far-field potentials in circular volumes: evidence to support the leading/trailing dipole model. Muscle Nerve 1992;15:101-105.
13. Ekstedt J, Stålberg E: How the size of the needle electrode leading-off surface influences the shape of the single muscle fibre action potential in electromyography. Comput Programs Biomed 1973;3:204-212.
14. Gootzen THJM: Muscle Fibre and Motor Unit Action Potentials: A Biophysical Basis for Clinical Electromyography. PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1990.
15. Guld C: On influence of measuring electrodes on duration and amplitude of muscle action potentials. Acta Physiol Scand 1951;25(suppl 89):30-32.
16. Henneberg KA, Plonsey R: Boundary element analysis of the directional sensitivity of the concentric EMG electrode. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993;40:621-631.
17. Howard JE, McGill KG, Dorfman LJ: Properties of motor unit action potentials recorded with concentric and monopolar needle electrodes: ADEMG analysis. Muscle Nerve 1988;11: 1051-1055.
18. Jasper H, Ballem G: Unipolar electromyogram of normal and denervated human muscle. J Neurophysiol 1949;12:231-244.
19. Johnson EW: The EMG examination, in Johnson EW (ed): Practical Electromyography (2nd ed). Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1988, pp. 19-20.
20. King JC, Dumitru D, Stegeman D: Monopolar needle electrode recording characteristics. Muscle Nerve 1996;10: 1310-1319.