Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix

Manuela Besomi; Paul W. Hodges; Edward A. Clancy; Jaap Van Dieën; François Hug; Madeleine Lowery; Roberto Merletti; Karen Søgaard; Tim Wrigley; Thor Besier; Richard G. Carson; Catherine Disselhorst-Klug; Roger M. Enoka; Deborah Falla; Dario Farina; Simon Gandevia; Aleš Holobar; Matthew C. Kiernan; Kevin McGill; Eric Perreault; John C. Rothwell; Kylie Tucker

doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix

Manuela Besomi, Paul W. Hodges^*, Edward A. Clancy, Jaap Van Dieën, François Hug, Madeleine Lowery, Roberto Merletti, Karen Søgaard, Tim Wrigley, Thor Besier, Richard G. Carson, Catherine Disselhorst-Klug, Roger M. Enoka, Deborah Falla, Dario Farina, Simon Gandevia, Aleš Holobar, Matthew C. Kiernan, Kevin McGill, Eric PerreaultJohn C. Rothwell, Kylie Tucker

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

738 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The general purpose of normalization of EMG amplitude is to enable comparisons between participants, muscles, measurement sessions or electrode positions. Normalization is necessary to reduce the impact of differences in physiological and anatomical characteristics of muscles and surrounding tissues. Normalization of the EMG amplitude provides information about the magnitude of muscle activation relative to a reference value. It is essential to select an appropriate method for normalization with specific reference to how the EMG signal will be interpreted, and to consider how the normalized EMG amplitude may change when interpreting it under specific conditions. This matrix, developed by the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, presents six approaches to EMG normalization: (1) Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in same task/context as the task of interest, (2) Standardized isometric MVC (which is not necessarily matched to the contraction type in the task of interest), (3) Standardized submaximal task (isometric/dynamic) that can be task-specific, (4) Peak/mean EMG amplitude in task, (5) Non-normalized, and (6) Maximal M-wave. General considerations for normalization, features that should be reported, definitions, and “pros and cons” of each normalization approach are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific experimental contexts, along with an explanation of the factors that determine the suitability of a method, and frequently asked questions. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting, reporting and interpreting EMG amplitude data.

Original language	English
Article number	102438
Pages (from-to)	1-17
Number of pages	17
Journal	Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
Volume	53
Early online date	10 Jun 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438
Publication status	Published - Aug 2020

Funding

Funding: This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (Program Grant: APP1091302). PWH is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (APP1102905). MB is supported by the University of Queensland Research Training Scholarship. MCK was supported by the NHMRC Program Grant (APP1132524), Partnership Project (APP1153439) and Practitioner Fellowship (APP1156093). AH is supported by Slovenian Research Agency (projects J2-1731 and L7-9421 and Program funding P2-0041). FH is supported by a fellowship from the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF). DF is supported by the European Research Council (ERC; 810346) and by the Royal Society (Wolfson Research Merit Award).

Funders	Funder number
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme	646923
Royal Society
European Research Council	810346
National Health and Medical Research Council	APP1091302, APP1102905
University of Queensland	APP1156093, APP1153439, APP1132524
Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS	L7-9421, J2-1731, P2-0041
Institut universitaire de France

Keywords

Amplitude normalization
Consensus
Electromyography
Muscle activation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

Consensus for experimental design in electromyography CEDE projectFinal published version, 509 KBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Besomi, M., Hodges, P. W., Clancy, E. A., Van Dieën, J., Hug, F., Lowery, M., Merletti, R., Søgaard, K., Wrigley, T., Besier, T., Carson, R. G., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Enoka, R. M., Falla, D., Farina, D., Gandevia, S., Holobar, A., Kiernan, M. C., McGill, K., ... Tucker, K. (2020). Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 53, 1-17. Article 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

@article{0c942122f0e54e718c5298806f97636b,

title = "Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix",

abstract = "The general purpose of normalization of EMG amplitude is to enable comparisons between participants, muscles, measurement sessions or electrode positions. Normalization is necessary to reduce the impact of differences in physiological and anatomical characteristics of muscles and surrounding tissues. Normalization of the EMG amplitude provides information about the magnitude of muscle activation relative to a reference value. It is essential to select an appropriate method for normalization with specific reference to how the EMG signal will be interpreted, and to consider how the normalized EMG amplitude may change when interpreting it under specific conditions. This matrix, developed by the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, presents six approaches to EMG normalization: (1) Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in same task/context as the task of interest, (2) Standardized isometric MVC (which is not necessarily matched to the contraction type in the task of interest), (3) Standardized submaximal task (isometric/dynamic) that can be task-specific, (4) Peak/mean EMG amplitude in task, (5) Non-normalized, and (6) Maximal M-wave. General considerations for normalization, features that should be reported, definitions, and “pros and cons” of each normalization approach are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific experimental contexts, along with an explanation of the factors that determine the suitability of a method, and frequently asked questions. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting, reporting and interpreting EMG amplitude data.",

keywords = "Amplitude normalization, Consensus, Electromyography, Muscle activation",

author = "Manuela Besomi and Hodges, {Paul W.} and Clancy, {Edward A.} and {Van Die{\"e}n}, Jaap and Fran{\c c}ois Hug and Madeleine Lowery and Roberto Merletti and Karen S{\o}gaard and Tim Wrigley and Thor Besier and Carson, {Richard G.} and Catherine Disselhorst-Klug and Enoka, {Roger M.} and Deborah Falla and Dario Farina and Simon Gandevia and Ale{\v s} Holobar and Kiernan, {Matthew C.} and Kevin McGill and Eric Perreault and Rothwell, {John C.} and Kylie Tucker",

year = "2020",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438",

language = "English",

volume = "53",

pages = "1--17",

journal = "Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology",

issn = "1050-6411",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Besomi, M, Hodges, PW, Clancy, EA, Van Dieën, J, Hug, F, Lowery, M, Merletti, R, Søgaard, K, Wrigley, T, Besier, T, Carson, RG, Disselhorst-Klug, C, Enoka, RM, Falla, D, Farina, D, Gandevia, S, Holobar, A, Kiernan, MC, McGill, K, Perreault, E, Rothwell, JC & Tucker, K 2020, 'Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix', Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, vol. 53, 102438, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project

T2 - Amplitude normalization matrix

AU - Besomi, Manuela

AU - Hodges, Paul W.

AU - Clancy, Edward A.

AU - Van Dieën, Jaap

AU - Hug, François

AU - Lowery, Madeleine

AU - Merletti, Roberto

AU - Søgaard, Karen

AU - Wrigley, Tim

AU - Besier, Thor

AU - Carson, Richard G.

AU - Disselhorst-Klug, Catherine

AU - Enoka, Roger M.

AU - Falla, Deborah

AU - Farina, Dario

AU - Gandevia, Simon

AU - Holobar, Aleš

AU - Kiernan, Matthew C.

AU - McGill, Kevin

AU - Perreault, Eric

AU - Rothwell, John C.

AU - Tucker, Kylie

PY - 2020/8

Y1 - 2020/8

N2 - The general purpose of normalization of EMG amplitude is to enable comparisons between participants, muscles, measurement sessions or electrode positions. Normalization is necessary to reduce the impact of differences in physiological and anatomical characteristics of muscles and surrounding tissues. Normalization of the EMG amplitude provides information about the magnitude of muscle activation relative to a reference value. It is essential to select an appropriate method for normalization with specific reference to how the EMG signal will be interpreted, and to consider how the normalized EMG amplitude may change when interpreting it under specific conditions. This matrix, developed by the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, presents six approaches to EMG normalization: (1) Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in same task/context as the task of interest, (2) Standardized isometric MVC (which is not necessarily matched to the contraction type in the task of interest), (3) Standardized submaximal task (isometric/dynamic) that can be task-specific, (4) Peak/mean EMG amplitude in task, (5) Non-normalized, and (6) Maximal M-wave. General considerations for normalization, features that should be reported, definitions, and “pros and cons” of each normalization approach are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific experimental contexts, along with an explanation of the factors that determine the suitability of a method, and frequently asked questions. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting, reporting and interpreting EMG amplitude data.

AB - The general purpose of normalization of EMG amplitude is to enable comparisons between participants, muscles, measurement sessions or electrode positions. Normalization is necessary to reduce the impact of differences in physiological and anatomical characteristics of muscles and surrounding tissues. Normalization of the EMG amplitude provides information about the magnitude of muscle activation relative to a reference value. It is essential to select an appropriate method for normalization with specific reference to how the EMG signal will be interpreted, and to consider how the normalized EMG amplitude may change when interpreting it under specific conditions. This matrix, developed by the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, presents six approaches to EMG normalization: (1) Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in same task/context as the task of interest, (2) Standardized isometric MVC (which is not necessarily matched to the contraction type in the task of interest), (3) Standardized submaximal task (isometric/dynamic) that can be task-specific, (4) Peak/mean EMG amplitude in task, (5) Non-normalized, and (6) Maximal M-wave. General considerations for normalization, features that should be reported, definitions, and “pros and cons” of each normalization approach are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific experimental contexts, along with an explanation of the factors that determine the suitability of a method, and frequently asked questions. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting, reporting and interpreting EMG amplitude data.

KW - Amplitude normalization

KW - Consensus

KW - Electromyography

KW - Muscle activation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086589218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85086589218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

DO - 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102438

M3 - Article

C2 - 32569878

AN - SCOPUS:85086589218

SN - 1050-6411

VL - 53

SP - 1

EP - 17

JO - Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

JF - Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

M1 - 102438

ER -

Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Amplitude normalization matrix

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this