A comparison of two commercial quantitative electromyographic algorithms with manual analysis

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 1999, Pages 1244-1248

  Bromberg, Mark B ^a   Smith, A Gordon ^a   Bauerle, Jay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Algorithms; Quantitative electromyography (QEMG); Quantitative motor unit analysis

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; MOTOR UNIT POTENTIAL; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WAVEFORM;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ALGORITHMS; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; MOTOR NEURONS;

EID: 0032840777     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199909)22:9<1244::AID-MUS12>3.0.CO;2-V     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. 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.
2. Lang A, Vaahtoranta K. The baseline, the time characteristics and the slow after-waves of the motor unit potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1973;35:387-394.
3. Pfeiffer G, Kunze K. Turn and phase counts of individual motor unit potentials: correlation and reliability. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;85:161-165.
4. Stålberg E, Andreassen S, Falk B, Lang H, Rosenfalck A, Trojaborg W. Quantitative analysis of individual motor unit potentials: a proposition for standardized terminology and criteria for measurement. J Clin Neurophysiol 1986;3:313-348.
5. Stewart C, Nandedkar S, Massey J, Gilchrist J, Barkhaus P, Sanders D. Evaluation of an automatic method of measuring features of motor unit action potentials. Muscle Nerve 1989; 12:141-148.