A comparison of three quantitative motor unit analysis algorithms.

Kevin C McGill
{"title":"A comparison of three quantitative motor unit analysis algorithms.","authors":"Kevin C McGill","doi":"10.1016/s1567-424x(08)00027-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assessed the accuracy of three automatic motor unit analysis algorithms--multi-motor unit analysis, decomposition quantitative EMG, and EMGtools--on a set of real EMG signals whose true composition was determined by manual decomposition. All three algorithms correctly identified all the MUs in signals with up to 5 active MUs, and most of the MUs in signals with up to 10 active MUs. The algorithms accurately estimated MUAP amplitudes and firing rates, but they estimated duration less accurately because of baseline noise. These findings support the validity and utility of these algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":85606,"journal":{"name":"Supplements to Clinical neurophysiology","volume":"60 ","pages":"273-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/s1567-424x(08)00027-5","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supplements to Clinical neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s1567-424x(08)00027-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This study assessed the accuracy of three automatic motor unit analysis algorithms--multi-motor unit analysis, decomposition quantitative EMG, and EMGtools--on a set of real EMG signals whose true composition was determined by manual decomposition. All three algorithms correctly identified all the MUs in signals with up to 5 active MUs, and most of the MUs in signals with up to 10 active MUs. The algorithms accurately estimated MUAP amplitudes and firing rates, but they estimated duration less accurately because of baseline noise. These findings support the validity and utility of these algorithms.

三种定量运动单元分析算法的比较。
本研究评估了三种自动运动单元分析算法——多运动单元分析、分解定量肌电图和肌电图工具——对一组真实肌电图信号的准确性,这些信号的真实成分是通过人工分解确定的。这三种算法都能正确识别出最多5个有效mu的信号中的所有mu,以及最多10个有效mu的信号中的大多数mu。该算法准确地估计了MUAP振幅和发射速率,但由于基线噪声的影响,它们估计持续时间的准确性较低。这些发现支持了这些算法的有效性和实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信