ArticleExperimental brain research2010
Assessment of across-muscle coherence using multi-unit vs. single-unit recordings.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural Mechanisms Underlying High-Frequency Vestibulocollic Reflexes In Humans And Monkeys.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Modifying motor unit territory placement in the Fuglevand model.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2017Article
- Neural bases of hand synergies.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2013Article
- Hand dominance during constant force isometric contractions: evidence of different cortical drive commands.European journal of applied physiology · 2012Article
- Assessment of across-muscle coherence using multi-unit vs. single-unit recordings.Experimental brain research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coherence between electromyographic (EMG) signals has been used to identify correlated neural inputs to motor units (MUs) innervating different muscles. Simulations using a motor-unit model (Fuglevand et al. 1992) were performed to determine the ability of coherence between two multi-unit EMGs (mEMG) to detect correlated MU activity and the range of correlation strengths in which mEMG coherence can be usefully employed. Coherence between motor-unit and mEMG activities in two muscles was determined as we varied the strength of a 30-Hz periodic common input, the number of correlated MU pairs and variability of MU discharge relative to the common input. Pooled and mEMG coherence amplitudes positively and negatively accelerated, respectively, toward the strongest and most widespread correlating inputs. Furthermore, the relation between pooled and mEMG coherence was also nonlinear and was essentially the same whether correlation strength varied by changing common input strength or its distribution. However, the most important finding is that while the mEMG coherence saturates at the strongest common input strengths, this occurs at common input strengths greater than found in most physiological studies. Thus, we conclude that mEMG coherence would be a useful measure in many experimental conditions and our simulation results suggest further guidelines for using and interpreting coherence between mEMG signals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.