European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 89, Issue 6, pp 514–519

Influence of the subcutaneous fat layer, as measured by ultrasound, skinfold calipers and BMI, on the EMG amplitude

  • C. Nordander
  • J. Willner
  • G.-Å. Hansson
  • B. Larsson
  • J. Unge
  • L. Granquist
  • S. Skerfving
Original Article

Abstract

Surface electromyography (sEMG) is an important tool to estimate muscular activity at work. There is, however, a great inter-individual variation, even in carefully standardized work tasks. The sEMG signal is attenuated in the subcutaneous tissues, differently for each subject, which requires normalization. This is commonly made in relation to a reference contraction, which by itself, however, introduces a variance. A normalization method that is independent of individual motivation, motor control and pain inhibition would be desirable. The aim of the study was to explore the influence of the subcutaneous tissue thickness on sEMG amplitude. Ultrasound measurements of the muscle to skin surface distance were made bilaterally over the trapezius muscle in 12 females. Skinfold caliper measurements from these sites, as well as from four other sites, were made, body mass index (BMI) was recorded, and sEMG was recorded at maximal and submaximal contractions. The muscle–electrode distance, as measured by ultrasound, explained 33% and 31% (on the dominant and non-dominant sides respectively) of the variance of the sEMG activity at a standardized submaximal contraction (average between the sides, 46%); for maximal contractions the explained variance was 21%. Trapezius skinfold measurements showed poor correlations with sEMG. Instead, the mean of skinfold measurements from other sites explained as much as 68% (submaximal contraction). The corresponding figure for BMI was 67%. In conclusion, skinfold thickness explains a major part of the inter-individual variance in sEMG amplitude, and normalization to this measure is a possibility worth further evaluation.

Keywords

Body mass index Electromyography Ultrasonography Skinfold thickness 

References

  1. Åkesson I, Hansson G-Å, Balogh I, Moritz U, Skerfving S (1997) Quantifying work load in neck, shoulders and wrists in female dentists. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 69:461–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balogh I, Hansson G-Å, Ohlsson K, Strömberg U, Skerfving S (1999) Interindividual variation of physical load in a work task. Scand J Work Environ Health 25:57–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Basmajian JV, Luca CJd (1979) Muscles alive. Their functions revealed by electromyography. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.Google Scholar
  4. Booth RA, Goddard BA, Paton A (1966) Measurement of fat thickness in man: a comparison of ultrasound, Harpenden calipers and electrical conductivity. Br J Nutr 20:719–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. De Luca CJ (1979) Physiology and mathematics of myoelectric signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 26:313–325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Durnin JV, Rahaman MM (1967) The assessment of the amount of fat in the human body from measurements of skinfold thickness. Br J Nutr 21:681–689PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Durnin JV, Womersley J (1974) Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32:77–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gwinup G, Chelvam R, Steinberg T (1971) Thickness of subcutaneous fat and activity of underlying muscles. Ann Intern Med 74:408–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson G-Å, Asterland P, Skerfving S (1997) Acquisition and analyses of whole-day electromyographic field recordings. In: Hermens HJ, Hägg G, Freriks B (eds) Proceedings of the second general SENIAM (Surface EMG for Non Invasive Assessment of Muscles) workshop. Roessing Research and Development, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 19–27Google Scholar
  10. Hansson G-Å, Asterland P, Kellerman M (2003) Modular data logger system for physical workload measurements. Ergonomics 46:407–415Google Scholar
  11. Heitmann BL (1990) Evaluation of body fat estimated from body mass index, skinfolds and impedance. A comparative study. Eur J Clin Nutr 44:831–837PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemingway MA, Biedermann HJ, Inglis J (1995) Electromyographic recordings of paraspinal muscles: variations related to subcutaneous tissue thickness. Biofeedback Self Regul 20:39–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hermens HJ, Hägg G, Freriks B (1997) Proceedings of the second general SENIAM workshop. European applications on surface electromyography, Roessingh Research and Development, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen C, Vasseljen O, Westgaard RH (1993) The influence of electrode position on bipolar surface electromyogram recordings of the upper trapezius muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol 67:266–273Google Scholar
  15. Larsson B, Björk J, Elert J, Gerdle B (2000) Mechanical performance and electromyography during repeated maximal isokinetic shoulder forward flexions in female cleaners with and without myalgia of the trapezius muscle and in healthy controls. Eur J Appl Physiol 83:257–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowery MM, Stoykov NS, Taflove A, Kuiken TA (2002) A multiple-layer finite-element model of the surface EMG signal. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49:446–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathiassen SE, Winkel J, Hägg GM (1995) Normalization of surface EMG amplitude from the upper trapezius muscle in ergonomic studies – a review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 5:197–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nordander C, Hansson G-Å, Rylander L, Asterland P, Unge Byström J, Ohlsson K, Balogh I, Skerfving S (2000) Muscular rest and gap frequency as EMG measures of physical exposure: the impact of work tasks and individual related factors. Ergonomics 43:1904–1919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Norlund A, Pålsson B, Ohlsson K, Skerfving S (2000) Economic consequences of occupational disorders in women with repetitive industrial work. Eur J Publ Health 10:127–132Google Scholar
  20. Ohlsson K, Hansson G-Å, Balogh I, Strömberg U, Pålsson B, Nordander C, Rylander L, Skerfving S (1994) Disorders of the neck and upper limbs in women in the fish processing industry. Occup Environ Med 51:826–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Orphanidou C, McCargar L, Birmingham CL, Mathieson J, Goldner E (1994) Accuracy of subcutaneous fat measurement: comparison of skinfold calipers, ultrasound, and computed tomography. J Am Diet Assoc 94:855–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmerud G, Sporrong H, Herberts P, Kadefors R (1998) Consequences of trapezius relaxation on the distribution of shoulder muscle forces: an electromyographic study. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 8:185–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranney D, Wells R, Moore A (1995) Upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in highly repetitive industries: precise anatomical physical findings. Ergonomics 38:1408–1423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rempel D (1998) Estimating muscle load using surface EMG amplitude. Marconi Research Conference, University of California, MarshallGoogle Scholar
  25. Roeleveld K, Stegeman DF, Vingerhoets HM, Van Oosterom A (1997) Motor unit potential contribution to surface electromyography. Acta Physiol Scand 160:175–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. SBU (2000) Pain in the back and neck. An evidence based compositon of knowledge [in Swedish]. SBU The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health care, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  27. Schüldt K, Harms-Ringdahl K (1988) Activity levels during isometric test contractions of neck and shoulder muscles. Scand J Rehabil Med 20:117–127Google Scholar
  28. Stegeman DF, Blok JH, Hermens HJ, Roeleveld K (2000) Surface EMG models: properties and applications. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10:313–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Volz PA, Ostrove SM (1984) Evaluation of a portable ultrasonoscope in assessing the body composition of college-age women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Nordander
    • 1
  • J. Willner
    • 2
  • G.-Å. Hansson
    • 1
  • B. Larsson
    • 1
  • J. Unge
    • 1
  • L. Granquist
    • 1
  • S. Skerfving
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Occupational and Environmental MedicineUniversity HospitalLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical PhysiologyUniversity HospitalLundSweden

Personalised recommendations