Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Electrode selection matrix

Manuela Besomi; Paul W Hodges; Jaap Van Dieën; Richard G Carson; Edward A Clancy; Catherine Disselhorst-Klug; Aleš Holobar; François Hug; Matthew C Kiernan; Madeleine Lowery; Kevin McGill; Roberto Merletti; Eric Perreault; Karen Søgaard; Kylie Tucker; Thor Besier; Roger Enoka; Deborah Falla; Dario Farina; Simon Gandevia; John C Rothwell; Bill Vicenzino; Tim Wrigley

doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.07.008

Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Electrode selection matrix

J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019 Oct:48:128-144. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.07.008. Epub 2019 Jul 19.

Authors

Manuela Besomi¹, Paul W Hodges², Jaap Van Dieën³, Richard G Carson⁴, Edward A Clancy⁵, Catherine Disselhorst-Klug⁶, Aleš Holobar⁷, François Hug⁸, Matthew C Kiernan⁹, Madeleine Lowery¹⁰, Kevin McGill¹¹, Roberto Merletti¹², Eric Perreault¹³, Karen Søgaard¹⁴, Kylie Tucker¹⁵, Thor Besier¹⁶, Roger Enoka¹⁷, Deborah Falla¹⁸, Dario Farina¹⁹, Simon Gandevia²⁰, John C Rothwell²¹, Bill Vicenzino¹, Tim Wrigley²²

Affiliations

¹ School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
² School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: p.hodges@uq.edu.au.
³ Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
⁴ Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK; School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia.
⁵ Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA.
⁶ Department of Rehabilitation and Prevention Engineering, Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
⁷ Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 46, Maribor, Slovenia.
⁸ School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Faculty of Sport Sciences, Laboratory "Movement, Interactions, Performance" (EA 4334), University of Nantes, Nantes, France; Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), Paris, France.
⁹ Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Neurology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁰ UCD School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
¹¹ US Department of Veterans Affairs, United States.
¹² LISiN, Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
¹³ Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL, USA.
¹⁴ Department of Clinical Research and Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
¹⁵ School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
¹⁶ Auckland Bioengineering Institute and Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
¹⁷ Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, USA.
¹⁸ Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
¹⁹ Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
²⁰ Neuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
²¹ Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
²² Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.

PMID: 31352156
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.07.008

Abstract

The Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project is an international initiative which aims to guide decision-making in recording, analysis, and interpretation of electromyographic (EMG) data. The quality of the EMG recording, and validity of its interpretation depend on many characteristics of the recording set-up and analysis procedures. Different electrode types (i.e., surface and intramuscular) will influence the recorded signal and its interpretation. This report presents a matrix to consider the best electrode type selection for recording EMG, and the process undertaken to achieve consensus. Four electrode types were considered: (1) conventional surface electrode, (2) surface matrix or array electrode, (3) fine-wire electrode, and (4) needle electrode. General features, pros, and cons of each electrode type are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific types of muscles, the information that can be estimated, the typical representativeness of the recording and the types of contractions for which the electrode is best suited. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting and reporting the electrode type in EMG studies.

Keywords: Consensus; Electrode types; Electromyography; Recording; Reporting.

MeSH terms

Consensus
Electrodes / standards
Electromyography / instrumentation
Electromyography / methods*
Electromyography / standards
Humans
Muscle, Skeletal / physiology