ArticlePloS one2026
A comparative analysis of co-contraction indices using synthetic EMG data: Implications for selection and interpretation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- From Trial to Chronic Epidural Electrical Stimulation: A Single-Patient Feasibility Study in Motor-Complete Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Co-contraction-the simultaneous activation of opposing muscles-influences movement efficiency, joint stability, and motor learning. While consensus exists for EMG acquisition and processing, comparable guidance for quantifying co-contraction is lacking. This study evaluated the behavior and interrelationships of six commonly used co-contraction indices (CCIs) to develop practical recommendations for their selection, calculation, and interpretation. Synthetic EMG-like signals were generated and used to evaluate CCI behavior across a range of conditions that would be difficult to achieve experimentally. Based on their formulas and observed behavior, CCIs were sorted into three categories: shape-based, amplitude-driven, and temporal indices. Shape-based CCIs increase when two EMG signals have similar shapes, regardless of amplitudes. Amplitude-driven CCIs increase when activation is high in both muscles. Temporal CCIs increase as the duration of EMG overlap increases, regardless of signal shape or amplitude. Correlation analyses showed stronger associations within-category than between-category, supporting the proposed classification scheme. CCI behavior yielded three principal findings, each paired with a practical recommendation. First, EMG amplitude normalization techniques altered co-contraction estimates, and the effect varied by index. Researchers should therefore test whether their conclusions hold across normalization methods. Second, because CCIs differ in scale and theoretical maxima, their values are not directly comparable across indices. Comparisons should instead focus on relative trends interpreted within each index's bounds. Third, each CCI category was sensitive to different EMG features (e.g., amplitude versus shape). The choice of CCI should therefore align with hypothesized differences in EMG signals-use shape-based CCIs when waveform similarity is of interest, and amplitude-driven CCIs when differences in activation magnitude are expected. These results provide initial guidance for selecting, calculating, and interpretating CCIs, and they establish a framework for testing the robustness of these theoretical findings using experimental EMG from diverse tasks, muscle pairs, and populations.
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.