@article{MartinezValdesNegroFallaetal.2018,
  author    = {Martinez-Valdes, Eduardo Andr{\´e}s and Negro, Francesco and Falla, Deborah and De Nunzio, Alessandro Marco and Farina, Dario},
  title     = {Surface electromyographic amplitude does not identify differences in neural drive to synergistic muscles},
  series = {Journal of applied physiology},
  volume    = {124},
  journal   = {Journal of applied physiology},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Chemical Society},
  address   = {Bethesda},
  issn      = {8750-7587},
  doi       = {10.1152/japplphysiol.01115.2017},
  pages     = {1071 -- 1079},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Surface electromyographic (EMG) signal amplitude is typically used to compare the neural drive to muscles. We experimentally investigated this association by studying the motor unit (MU) behavior and action potentials in the vastus medialis (VM) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles. Eighteen participants performed isometric knee extensions at four target torques [10. 30. 50, and 70\% of the maximum torque (MVC)] while high-density EMG signals were recorded from the VM and VL. The absolute EMG amplitude was greater for VM than VL (P < 0.001), whereas the EMG amplitude normalized with respect to MVC was greater for VL than VM (P < 0.04). Because differences in EMG amplitude can be due to both differences in the neural drive and in the size of the MU action potentials, we indirectly inferred the neural drives received by the two muscles by estimating the synaptic inputs received by the corresponding motor neuron pools. For this purpose. we analyzed the increase in discharge rate from recruitment to target torque for motor units matched by recruitment threshold in the two muscles. This analysis indicated that the two muscles received similar levels of neural drive. Nonetheless, the size of the MU action potentials was greater for VM than VL (P < 0.001), and this difference explained most of the differences in EMG amplitude between the two muscles (similar to 63\% of explained variance). These results indicate that EMG amplitude, even following normalization, does not reflect the neural drive to synergistic muscles. Moreover, absolute EMG amplitude is mainly explained by the size of MU action potentials. NEW \& NOTEWORTHY Electromyographic (EMG) amplitude is widely used to compare indirectly the strength of neural drive received by synergistic muscles. However, there are no studies validating this approach with motor unit data. Here, we compared between-muscles differences in surface EMG amplitude and motor unit behavior. The results clarify the limitations of surface EMG to interpret differences in neural drive between muscles.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HelmPrieskeMuehlbaueretal.2018,
  author    = {Helm, Norman and Prieske, Olaf and M{\"u}hlbauer, Thomas and Kr{\"u}ger, Tom and Granacher, Urs},
  title     = {Effects of judo-specific resistance training on kinetic and electromyographic parameters of pulling exercises in judo athletes},
  series = {Sportverletzung, Sportschaden : Grundlagen, Pr{\"a}vention, Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Sportverletzung, Sportschaden : Grundlagen, Pr{\"a}vention, Rehabilitation},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Thieme},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0932-0555},
  doi       = {10.1055/s-0043-122781},
  pages     = {134 -- 142},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background In judo, rapid force production during pulling movements is an important component of athletic performance, which is why this capacity needs to be specifically exercised in judo. This study aimed at examining the effects of a judo-specific resistance training program using a judo ergometer system (PTJ) versus a traditional resistance training regime using a partner (PTP) on kinetics and muscle activity of judo-specific pulling exercises. Method Twenty-four male judo athletes (age: 22 +/- 4 years, training experience: 15 +/- 3 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. In a crossover design, the first group completed a 4-week PTJ followed by four weeks of PTP (each with three sessions per week). The second group conducted PTP prior to PTJ. PTJ and PTP were completed in addition to regular training. Before, 4 weeks and 8 weeks after training, tests were conducted to assess judo-specific pulling kinetics (i.e. maximal force, rate of force development [RFD], mechanical work) and electromyographic (EMG) shoulder/trunk muscle activity (i.e. biceps brachii muscle, deltoid muscle, trapezius muscle, erector spinae muscle) during pulling movements using a judo ergometer as well as unspecific strength tests (i.e. bench-pull, pull-ups). Results The statistical analysis revealed that in both groups ergometer pulling kinetics (p<.05, 0.83 <= d <= 1.77) and EMG activity (p<.05; 1.07 <= d <= 2.25) were significantly enhanced following 8 weeks of training. In addition, significantly larger gains in RFD, mechanical work, and EMG activity (i.e. deltoid muscle, erector spinae muscle, trapezius muscle) were found following PTJ compared to PTP (p<.05, 1.25 <= d <= 2.79). No significant enhancements were observed with the unspecific strength tests. Conclusion Our findings indicate that PTJ is superior to PTP regarding training-induced improvements in force production and muscle activity during judo-specific pulling exercises. Performance enhancements may partly be attributed to neural adaptations. No transfer effects on unspecific strength tests were detected following PTJ and PTP.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{MartinezValdesGuzmanVenegasSilvestreetal.2016,
  author    = {Martinez-Valdes, Eduardo Andr{\´e}s and Guzman-Venegas, R. A. and Silvestre, R. A. and Macdonald, J. H. and Falla, D. and Araneda, O. F. and Haichelis, D.},
  title     = {Electromyographic adjustments during continuous and intermittent incremental fatiguing cycling},
  series = {Psychotherapeut},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Psychotherapeut},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0905-7188},
  doi       = {10.1111/sms.12578},
  pages     = {1273 -- 1282},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We studied the sensitivity of electromyographic (EMG) variables to load and muscle fatigue during continuous and intermittent incremental cycling. Fifteen men attended three laboratory sessions. Visit 1: lactate threshold, peak power output, and VO2max. Visits 2 and 3: Continuous (more fatiguing) and intermittent (less fatiguing) incremental cycling protocols [20\%, 40\%, 60\%, 80\% and 100\% of peak power output (PPO)]. During both protocols, multichannel EMG signals were recorded from vastus lateralis: muscle fiber conduction velocity (MFCV), instantaneous mean frequency (iMNF), and absolute and normalized root mean square (RMS) were analyzed. MFCV differed between protocols (P<0.001), and only increased consistently with power output during intermittent cycling. RMS parameters were similar between protocols, and increased linearly with power output. However, only normalized RMS was higher during the more fatiguing 100\% PPO stage of the continuous protocol [continuous-intermittent mean difference (95\% CI): 45.1 (8.5\% to 81.7\%)]. On the contrary, iMNF was insensitive to load changes and muscle fatigue (P=0.14). Despite similar power outputs, continuous and intermittent cycling influenced MFCV and normalized RMS differently. Only normalized RMS was sensitive to both increases in power output (in both protocols) and muscle fatigue, and thus is the most suitable EMG parameter to monitor changes in muscle activation during cycling.},
  language  = {en}
}