ArticleBiomedical engineering online2023
Estimating the neural spike train from an unfused tetanic signal of low-threshold motor units using convolutive blind source separation.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividual motor units have been imaged using ultrafast ultrasound based on separating ultrasound images into motor unit twitches (unfused tetanus) evoked by the motoneuronal spike train. Currently, the spike train is estimated from the unfused tetanic signal using a Haar wavelet method (HWM). Although this ultrasound technique has great potential to provide comprehensive access to the neural drive to muscles for a large population of motor units simultaneously, the method has a limited identification rate of the active motor units. The estimation of spikes partly explains the limitation. Since the HWM may be sensitive to noise and unfused tetanic signals often are noisy, we must consider alternative methods with at least similar performance and robust against noise, among other factors.
resultsThis study aimed to estimate spike trains from simulated and experimental unfused tetani using a convolutive blind source separation (CBSS) algorithm and compare it against HWM. We evaluated the parameters of CBSS using simulations and compared the performance of CBSS against the HWM using simulated and experimental unfused tetanic signals from voluntary contractions of humans and evoked contraction of rats. We found that CBSS had a higher performance than HWM with respect to the simulated firings than HWM (97.5 ± 2.7 vs 96.9 ± 3.3, p < 0.001). In addition, we found that the estimated spike trains from CBSS and HWM highly agreed with the experimental spike trains (98.0% and 96.4%).
conclusionsThis result implies that CBSS can be used to estimate the spike train of an unfused tetanic signal and can be used directly within the current ultrasound-based motor unit identification pipeline. Extending this approach to decomposing ultrasound images into spike trains directly is promising. However, it remains to be investigated in future studies where spatial information is inevitable as a discriminating factor.
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.