Advertisement

Sport Sciences for Health

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 591–597 | Cite as

Effects of pennation angle, electrodes orientation and knee angle on surface electromyography of vastus lateralis during isometric contractions

  • Felipe Torres Miranda Oliveira
  • Carlos Gomes de OliveiraEmail author
  • Walace David Monteiro
  • Paulo Farinatti
Original Article
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The effects of pennation angle (PA), electrode orientation (EO) and knee angle (KA) on the amplitude of electromyography signal (EMG) of vastus lateralis muscle (VL) were investigated.

Methods

Seventeen participants (8 men and 9 women; 26.5 ± 5.1 years; 64.4 ± 12.3 kg; 1.66 ± 0.09 m) accomplished isometric tests at four contraction intensities (COI): 25, 50, 75 and 100% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), with KA at 90° and 120°. PA was measured at rest and during contractions. One pair of electrodes was aligned with PA of relaxed VL fibers (pair 1) and another (pair 2) was 20° internally rotated to pair 1. The EMG root mean square (RMS) was calculated and later corrected (RMSC) using equations including PA and 20° angle.

Results

PA increased with COI (p < 0.001), but was not influenced by KA. Both RMS and RMSC were higher with KA at 90° than 120° (p < 0.01). RMS, but not RMSC were higher from pair 1 in COI at 50 and 75% MVC (p < 0.05). Correlations between outcomes obtained with pair 1 and pair 2 were stronger for RMSC (r = 0.99; p < 0.001) than RMS (r = 0.93; p < 0.01). No effect of KA or COI was detected for RMS or RMSC expressed as %MVC (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The PA can be used to improve RMS estimation and further expressed as %MVC maybe promisor in EMG–force related issues. Association between EMG and PA appears to be dependent on their relation to COI.

Keywords

Joint angle Bipolar EMG PA Electrodes orientation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Arampatzis A, De Monte G, Karamanidis K, Morey-Klapsing G, Stafilidis S, Brüggemann GP (2006) Influence of the muscle–tendon unit’s mechanical and morphological properties on running economy. J Exp Biol 209:3345–3357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babault N, Pousson M, Michaut A, Van Hoecke J (2003) Effect of quadriceps femoris muscle length on neural activation during isometric and concentric contractions. J Appl Physiol 94:983–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker R, Awiszus F (2001) Physiological alterations of maximal voluntary quadriceps activation by changes of knee joint angle. Muscle Nerve 5(24):667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blazevich A, Cannavan D, Coleman D, Horne S (2007) Influence of concentric and eccentric resistance training on architectural adaptation in human quadriceps muscles. J Appl Physiol 5(103):1565–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brughelli M, Cronin J, Mendiguchia J, Kinsella D, Nosaka K (2010) Contralateral leg deficits in kinetic and kinematic variables during running in Australian rules football players with previous hamstring injuries. J. Strength Cond Res 24:2539–2544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chauhan BA, Hamzeh MA, Cuesta-Vargas AI (2013) Prediction of muscular architecture of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis from EMG during isometric contractions in soccer players. SpringerPlus 2:548. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-548.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chleboun GS, France AR, Crill MT, Braddock HK, Howell JN (2001) In vivo measurement of fascicle length and pennation angle of the human biceps femoris muscle. Cells Tissues Organs 4(169):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuesta-Vargas AI, González-Sánchez M (2014) Prediction of maximal surface electromyographically based voluntary contractions of erector spinae muscles from sonographic measurements during isometric contractions. J Ultrasound Med 33:399–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Luca CJ (1997) The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech 13:135–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doheny EP, Lowery MM, Fitzpatrick DP (2008) Effect of elbow joint angle on force–EMG relationships in human elbow flexor and extensor muscles. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 5(18):760–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farina D, Merletti R, Nazzaro M, Caruso I (2001) Effect of joint angle on EMG variables in leg and thigh muscles. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 20:62–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farina D, Cescon C, Merletti R (2002) Influence of anatomical, physical, and detection system parameters on surface EMG. Biol Cybern 6(86):445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen EA, Lee HD, Barrett K, Herzog W (2003) The shape of the force–elbow angle relationship for maximal voluntary contractions and submaximal electrically induced contractions in human elbow flexors. J Appl Biomech 36:1713–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herbert RD, Gandevia SC (1995) Changes in pennation with joint angle and muscle torque: in vivo measurements in human brachialis muscle. J Physiol 484(2):523–532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Hägg G, Stegeman D, Blok J et al editors (1999) SENIAM 8: European recommendations for surface electromyography, ISBN: 90-75452-15-2: Roessingh Research and Development bvGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennedy PM, Cresswell AG (2001) The effect of muscle length on motor-unit recruitment during isometric plantar flexion in humans. Exp Brain Res 137:58–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kubo K, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T (2004) Activation of agonist and antagonist muscles at different joint angles during maximal isometric efforts. Eur J Appl Physiol 91:349–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linnamo V, Strojnik V, Komi PV (2006) Maximal force during eccentric and isometric actions at different elbow angles. Eur J Appl Physiol 96:672–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mairet S, Maïsetti O, Portero P (2006) Homogeneity and reproducibility of in vivo fascicle length and pennation determined by ultrasonography in human vastus lateralis muscle. Sci Sports 21:268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manal K, Roberts DP, Buchanan TS (2008) Can pennation angles be predicted from EMGs for the primary ankle plantar and dorsiflexors during isometric contractions? J Biomech 4:2492–2497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mello RGT, Oliveira LF, Nadal J (2007) Digital Butterworth filter for subtracting noise from low magnitude surface electromyogram. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 87:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merletti R, Conte L, Avignone E (1999) Modeling of surface myoelectric signals-part I: model implementation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 7(46):810–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mesin L, Farina D (2004) Simulation of surface EMG signals generated by muscle tissues with inhomogeneity due to fiber pennation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(9):1521–1529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miaki H, Someya F, Tachino K (1999) A comparison of electrical activity in the triceps surae at maximum isometric contraction with the knee and ankle at various angles. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 80(3):185–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Narici MV, Binzoni T, Hiltbrand E, Fasel J, Terrier F, Cerretelli P (1996) In vivo human gastrocnemius architecture with changing joint angle at rest and during graded isometric contraction. J Physiol (Lond) 496(Pt 1):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Onishi H, Yagi R, Oyama M, Akasaka K, Ihashi K, Handa Y (2002) EMG–angle relationship of the hamstring muscles during maximum knee flexion. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 12:399–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pincivero DM, Salfetnikov T, Campy R, Coelho A (2004) Angle- and gender-specific quadriceps femoris muscle recruitment and knee extensor torque. J Biomech 11(37):1689–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saito A, Akima H (2013) Knee joint angle affects EMG–force relationship in the vastus intermedius muscle. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23:1406–1412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Staudenmann D, Kingma I, Daffertshofer A, Stegeman DF, Van Dieen JH (2006) Improving EMG-based muscle force estimation by using a high-density EMG grid and principal component analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 4(53):712–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Staudenmann D, Roeleveld K, Stegeman DF, Van Dieën JH (2010) Methodological aspects of SEMG recordings for force estimation—a tutorial and review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20:375–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watanabe K, Akima H (2011) Effect of knee joint angle on neuromuscular activation of the vastus intermedius muscle during isometric contractions. Scand J Med Sci Sports 21(6):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zedka M, Kumar S, Narayan Y (1997) Comparison of surface EMG signals between electrode types, interelectrode distances and electrode orientations in isometric exercise of the erector spinae muscle. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 37(7):439–447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zuniga JM, Housh TJ, Camic CL, Hendrix CR, Mielke M, Schmidt RJ, Johnson GO (2010) The effects of parallel versus perpendicular electrode orientations on EMG amplitude and mean power frequency from the biceps brachii. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 50(2):87–96PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe Torres Miranda Oliveira
    • 1
  • Carlos Gomes de Oliveira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Walace David Monteiro
    • 2
    • 3
  • Paulo Farinatti
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.EEFD, Lab. De BiomecânicaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.LABSAU, Universidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.PGCAF, Universidade Salgado de OliveiraNiteróiBrazil

Personalised recommendations