2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relevance of motion artifact in electromyography recordings during vibration treatment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
88
1
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
7
88
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast to our results, Fratini et al (2009) suggested the sharp EMG spectral peaks observed during WBV to result from motion artifacts. This discrepancy can most likely be ascribed to methodological constraints in (Fratini et al 2009).…”
Section: Comparison With Literaturecontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In contrast to our results, Fratini et al (2009) suggested the sharp EMG spectral peaks observed during WBV to result from motion artifacts. This discrepancy can most likely be ascribed to methodological constraints in (Fratini et al 2009).…”
Section: Comparison With Literaturecontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…In some studies, these peaks have been interpreted as the result of motion artifacts (Abercromby et al 2007). These results were confirmed by other authors using dummy-like electrodes, i.e., electrodes placed on the patella (Fratini et al 2009). Possible mechanisms contributing to the generation of motion artifacts were previously suggested to be variations in the half-cell potential caused by ionic gel movement at the metal-electrolyte interface and the skin-electrode interface (Kahn 1965), skin potential variations caused by skin stretch (Tam and Webster 1977;Ödman and Oberg 1982;Ödman 1981;de Talhouet and Webster 1996), and movement of the recording cables (Huhta and Webster 1973;Simakov and Webster 2010).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ide al body we ight was cal cu la ted as (Ide al body mass in dex) x (body he ight) 2 . The mean vib ra ti on lo ad was 20.2 (18-23) kg in fe ma les and 23.8 (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) kg in ma les.…”
Section: Ex Pe Rimen Tal Tests and Me A Su Re Mentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Myoelectrical activity measurements recorded via SEMG could be affected by motion artifacts (6,24,25). Such artifacts can be eliminated using appropriate series of notch filters and full-wave rectification without losing valuable information on the motor unit response to vibration in SEMG data (26).…”
Section: Surface Electromyographymentioning
confidence: 99%