2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.07.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The concurrent validity of three computerized methods of muscle activity onset detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A linear envelope of the EMG signals was then obtained by full-wave rectification and low-pass filtering with a 2 nd order Butterworth filter (cut-off frequency of 30 Hz). The visual muscle onset determination method was used by the same experienced experimenter to estimate the latency of the muscle activation with respect to the mechanical event of RHC2 [24]. EMG waveforms were amplitude-normalised by the mean value of the entire trial [25], time-normalised (100 points) and ensemble averaged over each group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A linear envelope of the EMG signals was then obtained by full-wave rectification and low-pass filtering with a 2 nd order Butterworth filter (cut-off frequency of 30 Hz). The visual muscle onset determination method was used by the same experienced experimenter to estimate the latency of the muscle activation with respect to the mechanical event of RHC2 [24]. EMG waveforms were amplitude-normalised by the mean value of the entire trial [25], time-normalised (100 points) and ensemble averaged over each group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Time of EMG onset (onset time = ON t ) was included in the analysis for the stationary conditions and identified as the point at which 50 consecutive EMG samples (approximately 25 ms) exceeded 3 standard deviations from the mean baseline reference amplitude. Baseline EMG activity was defined as the lowest mean in a 100 ms period in the first second of the acquisition (Carter & Gutierrez, 2015).…”
Section: Data Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%