Trial reportMedical & biological engineering & computing2013
Estimation of impulse response between electromyogram signals for use in conduction delay distribution estimation.
Trial report in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Teaching Essential EMG Theory to Kinesiologists and Physical Therapists Using Analogies Visual Descriptions, and Qualitative Analysis of Biophysical Concepts.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The time delay between two surface electromyograms (EMGs) acquired along the conduction path is used to estimate mean action potential conduction velocity. Modeling the linear impulse response between "upstream" and "downstream" EMG signals permits an estimate of the distribution of velocities, providing more information. In this work, we analyzed EMG from bipolar electrodes placed on the tibialis anterior of 36 subjects, using an inter-electrode distance of 10 mm. Regularized least squares was used to fit the coefficients of a finite impulse response model. We trained the model on one recording, then tested on two others. The optimum correlation between the model-predicted and actual EMG averaged 0.70. We also compared estimation of the mean conduction delay from the peak time of the impulse response to the "gold standard" peak time of the cross-correlation between the upstream and downstream EMG signals. Optimal models differed from the gold standard by 0.02 ms, on average. Model performance was influenced by the regularization parameters. The impulse responses, however, incorrectly contained substantive power at very low time delays, causing delay distribution estimates to exhibit high probabilities at very short conduction delays. Unrealistic distribution estimates resulted. Larger inter-electrode spacing may be required to alleviate this limitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23385331What 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.