ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
A comparison of electromyography techniques: surface versus intramuscular recording.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Load-dependent dissociation between H-reflex amplitude and background EMG activity during oscillatory loading: implications for the bone myoregulation reflex.Experimental brain research · 2026Trial
- Design and Validation of a Hand Interossei Muscle Dynamometer (HIMDNA) for Finger Abduction and Adduction Strength Measurement.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Exteroceptive Reflexes in Stiff Person Syndrome, Other Neurological Conditions and Healthy Controls.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Muscle fibre denervation in ageing.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2026Review
- Loading modulates monosynaptic transmission from spindle primary afferents to motoneurons in humans.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Surface Electromyography for Parkinson's Disease Monitoring: A Review of Machine and Deep Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Feasibility of High-Density Surface Electromyography for the Detection of Neuromuscular Disorders in Children.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Correlation study between brain activation levels and postural control performance in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Towards bioelectric signal-enabled human healthcare monitoring: state-of-the-art, design strategies, challenge, and future.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Normative surface electromyography values for the orbicularis oculi muscle in healthy control subjects.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Generalizable gesture classification of HDsEMG using volume representations of muscles averaged across multiple individuals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of subdermal needle and surface adhesive electrodes for intraoperative neuromonitoring during spine surgeries.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Mechanomyography as a novel marker of nerve dysfunction and recovery in chronic entrapment neuropathy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review is a comprehensive guide for electromyography (EMG) researchers, providing a comparison of skin EMG recording (surface EMG: sEMG and high-density sEMG: HD-sEMG) and intramuscular EMG recording (multi-motor unit-MMU and single motor unit electromyography-SMU). We delve into the nuances of techniques, highlighting their strengths and limitations in quantifying muscle activation during dynamic and static conditions. We first examine how EMG signals change with time, focussing on the interplay between motor unit synchronisation and signal amplitude. The review then explores the impact of electrode placement on signal quality. We further discuss the challenges of signal cancellation, crosstalk from neighbouring muscles, and motion artifacts, which can significantly affect signal integrity. Finally, we address the temporal changes in electrode impedance and its implications for data interpretation. Our analysis proposes that specific research objectives should guide the choice amongst sEMG, HD-sEMG, SMU and MMU. MMU, which records the peak counts of individual motor unit action potentials from a localised muscle area, is particularly suited for studying deep or small muscles during static and dynamic activities. Its high sensitivity to motor unit recruitment and discharge rates minimises the impact of factors such as signal cancellation and motion artefacts. Conversely, sEMG is well-suited for short-duration, isometric assessments of large, superficial muscles. HD-sEMG helps study single motor unit properties under isometric conditions. SMU is particularly suited for studying neuronal networks between stimulated sites and motor neurons. This review aims to provide researchers with the information to select the most appropriate EMG technique for their investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39438311What 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.