Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Directional Sensors for Recording Uterine EMG During Pregnancy

  • Pregnancy: Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multichannel uterine electromyography (uEMG) during pregnancy is traditionally performed with electrocardiography (ECG) sensors. Similar signals are often observed in two or more channels, suggesting the ECG sensors report activities originating from the same location on the uterus. To improve signal source localization, we designed a directional sensor or “Area Sensor”. Here we compare Area Sensors with ECG sensors for source localization. Subjects were ≥ 38 wks experiencing regular contractions. 6 Area Sensors (n = 8) or 6 to 7 ECG sensors (n = 7) were used to record multichannel uEMG for 60 min. For each sensor type, the similarity of signals observed in pairs of channels during contractions was assessed by quantifying channel crosstalk. Since crosstalk depends on the separation between sensors, analyses were performed within distance groups: A 9–12 cm; B 13–16 cm; C 17–20 cm; D 21–24 cm; E ≥ 25 cm. For ECG sensors, crosstalk was 67.9 ± 14.4% in group A, decreasing to 27.8 ± 17.5% in group E. For Area Sensors, crosstalk was 24.6 ± 18.6% in Group A, decreasing to 12.5 ± 13.8% in group E. Area Sensors showed less crosstalk than ECG sensors in distance groups A, B, C and D, with all p < 0.002. Compared with ECG sensors, Area Sensors are more directional and report uterine activity from a smaller area of the uterine wall. Using 6 Area Sensors separated by at least 17 cm provides acceptably independent multichannel recording. This introduces the possibility of non-invasively evaluating uterine synchronization and the strength of individual uterine contractions in real time.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Patient outcome data are not available for review. Collected summaries of the uterine EMG data based on sensor-to-sensor distance groupings are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Lammers WJ. The electrical activities of the uterus during pregnancy. Reprod Sci. 2013;20(2):182–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rabotti C, Mischi M. Propagation of electrical activity in uterine muscle during pregnancy: a review. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2015;213(2):406–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Young RC, Barendse P. Linking myometrial physiology to intrauterine pressure; how tissue-level contractions create uterine contractions of labor. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(10):e1003850.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Young RC. Mechanotransduction mechanisms for coordinating uterine contractions in human labor. Reproduction. 2016;152(2):R51-61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramon C, et al. Synchronization analysis of the uterine magnetic activity during contractions. Biomed Eng Online. 2005;4:55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang M, et al. Estimating uterine source current during contractions using magnetomyography measurements. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0202184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Csapo A. The diagnostic significance of the intrauterine pressure. I Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1970;25(5):403–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang H, et al. Accuracy of electromyometrial imaging of uterine contractions in clinical environment. Comput Biol Med. 2020;116:103543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cahill AG, et al. Analysis of Electrophysiological Activation of the Uterus During Human Labor Contractions. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2214707.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang H, Wang Y. Spatial-dependent regularization to solve the inverse problem in electromyometrial imaging. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2020;58(8):1651–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Winter DA, Fuglevand AJ, Archer SE. Crosstalk in surface electromyography: Theoretical and practical estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1994;4(1):15–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Talib I, Sundaraj K, Lam CK. Analysis of the crosstalk in mechanomyographic signals along the longitudinal, lateral and transverse axes of elbow flexor muscles during sustained isometric forearm flexion, supination and pronation exercises. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2020;20(2):194–205.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Li G, Wang L, Lu SC-Y, Wang Y, Jiang W, Besio W. The feasibility study of the Laplacian electrode for EEG. 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference, Shangai. 2005;4670–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2005.1615512

  14. Alberola-Rubio J, et al. Recording of electrohysterogram Laplacian potential. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:2510–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ye-Lin Y, et al. Prediction of labor using non-invasive Laplacian EHG recordings. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:7428–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Makeyev O, Besio WG. Improving the Accuracy of Laplacian Estimation with Novel Variable Inter-Ring Distances Concentric Ring Electrodes. Sensors (Basel). 2016;16(6):858.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The equipment and sensors used in the studies were provided by PreTeL, Inc. Studies performed the University of Rochester site were supported by NIH grant R43HD095302-01, Optimizing and Validating an EMB-based Fetal Monitor to Identify True Preterm Labor. PT: Roger C. Young, MD, PhD; Site Investigator: Neil Seligman, MD.

Funding

Drs. Adair and Young have financial interest in PreTeL, Inc, which funded this research and has patents on use of the Area Sensor during pregnancy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PreTeL, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, USA

    Roger Young

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Ponnila Marinescu & Neil Seligman

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, TN, USA

    C. David Adair

  4. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Braxton Hern

Authors
  1. Roger Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ponnila Marinescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Seligman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. David Adair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Braxton Hern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger Young.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The research performed was a non-interventional, minimal risk, observational trial (not a randomized trial), hence CONSORT regulations do not apply.

Consent to Participate

Consent to participate in the study were obtained under a clinical research protocol that was approved by the local IRB at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, TN, titled “Clinical Efficacy of PreTel Regional Contraction uEMG/ECG Fetal Monitor,” version, and the clinical research protocol approved by the IRB at the University of Rochester, titled “Optimizing and Validating and EMG-based Fetal Monitor to Identify True Labor” approval number 72877.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication were under faculty publication guidelines at each study site. Availability of data and material are in accordance with NIH FAIR data principles.

Conflict of Interest

Drs Marinescu, Seligman and Hern have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, R., Marinescu, P., Seligman, N. et al. Directional Sensors for Recording Uterine EMG During Pregnancy. Reprod. Sci. 30, 3190–3196 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01268-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01268-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation