Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 119, Issue 1, pp 9–28 | Cite as

A review on crosstalk in myographic signals

  • Irsa TalibEmail author
  • Kenneth Sundaraj
  • Chee Kiang Lam
  • Jawad Hussain
  • Md. Asraf Ali
Invited Review

Abstract

Purpose

Crosstalk in myographic signals is a major hindrance to the understanding of local information related to individual muscle function. This review aims to analyse the problem of crosstalk in electromyography and mechanomyography.

Methods

An initial search of the SCOPUS database using an appropriate set of keywords yielded 290 studies, and 59 potential studies were selected after all the records were screened using the eligibility criteria. This review on crosstalk revealed that signal contamination due to crosstalk remains a major challenge in the application of surface myography techniques. Various methods have been employed in previous studies to identify, quantify and reduce crosstalk in surface myographic signals.

Results

Although correlation-based methods for crosstalk quantification are easy to use, there is a possibility that co-contraction could be interpreted as crosstalk. High-definition EMG has emerged as a new technique that has been successfully applied to reduce crosstalk.

Conclusions

The phenomenon of crosstalk needs to be investigated carefully because it depends on many factors related to muscle task and physiology. This review article not only provides a good summary of the literature on crosstalk in myographic signals but also discusses new directions related to techniques for crosstalk identification, quantification and reduction. The review also provides insights into muscle-related issues that impact crosstalk in myographic signals.

Keywords

Crosstalk Electromyography Mechanomyography Signal contamination 

Abbreviations

ADM

Abductor digiti minimi

APB

Abductor pollicis brevis

ARV

Average rectified value

BB

Biceps brachii

BE

Branched electrode

BSS

Blind source separation

BP

Bipolar

BRA

Brachialis

BRD

Brachioradialis

CCC

Cross-correlation co-efficient

CS

Corrugator supercilii

DD

Double differential

ECU

Extensor carpi ulnaris

ECR

Extensor carpi radialis

ED

Extensor digitorum

EDC

Extensor digitorum communis

EDM

Extensor digiti minimi

EI

Extensor indicis

EMG

Electromyography

ES

Erector spinae

FCR

Flexor carpi radialis

FCU

Flexor carpi ulnaris

FDP

Flexor digitorum superficialis

FDS

Flexor digitorum profundus

FES

Field electrode stimulation

GL

Gastrocnemius lateralis

GM

Gastrocnemius medialis

ICA

Independent component analysis

IED

Inter electrode distance

IEMG

Integrated EMG

IL

Iliopsoas

LD

Latissimus dorsi

MF

Median frequency

MMG

Mechanomyography

MUAP

Motor unit action potential

OO

Orbicularis oculi

PL

Peroneus longus

PP

Peak to peak

PT

Pronator teres

RAEO

Rectus abdominis internal oblique

RF

Rectus femoris

RMS

Root mean square

sEMG

Surface EMG

SOL

Soleus

SA

Sartorius

TA

Tibialis anterior

TS

Triceps surae

TB

Triceps brachii

TMS

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

TAIO

Transversus abdominis internal oblique

VI

Vastus intermedialis

VL

Vastus lateralis

VM

Vastus medialis

wEMG

Wired EMG

ZM

Zygomaticus major

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for providing a conducive platform to conduct the research. Funding was provided by e-Science Fund research grant, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MoSTI), Malaysia.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the search experiment: IT, KS and MAA. Performed the search experiment: IT, KS and LCK. Contents arrangement: IT, KS and JH Wrote the paper: IT and KS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akamatsu T, Kawashima N, Tsunekuni T, Imagawa K, Miyasaka M (2015) A blinking periorbital prosthesis using surface electromyographic signals of the orbicularis oculi muscle. Eur J Plast Surg 38(5):371–376PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali A, Sundaraj K, Ahmad RB, Ahamed NU, Islam A (2013) Surface electromyography for assessing triceps brachii muscle activities: a literature review. Biocybern Biomed Eng 33(4):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr KM, Miller AL, Chapin KB (2010) Surface electromyography does not accurately reflect rectus femoris activity during gait: impact of speed and crouch on vasti-to-rectus crosstalk. Gait Posture 32(3):363–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck TW, DeFreitas JM, Stock MS (2010) An examination of cross-talk among surface mechanomyographic signals from the superficial quadriceps femoris muscles during isometric muscle actions. Hum Mov Sci 29(2):165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benhamou MM, Revel M, Vallee C (1990) Surface electrodes are not appropriate to record selective myoelectric activity of splenius capitis muscle in humans. Exp Brain Res 105(3):432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brink-Elfegoun T, Holmberg H-C, Ekblom MN, Ekblom B (2007) Neuromuscular and circulatory adaptation during combined arm and leg exercise with different maximal work loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 101(5):603–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne C, Lyons G, Donnelly A, O’keeffe D, Hermens H, Nene A (2005) Rectus femoris surface myoelectric signal cross-talk during static contractions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 15(6):564–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campanini I, Merlo A, Degola P, Merletti R, Vezzosi G, Farina D (2007) Effect of electrode location on EMG signal envelope in leg muscles during gait. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 17(4):515–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Luca CJ (1997) The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech 13(2):135–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Luca CJ, Kuznetsov M, Gilmore LD, Roy SH (2012) Inter-electrode spacing of surface EMG sensors: reduction of crosstalk contamination during voluntary contractions. J Biomech 45(3):555–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dogadov A, Serviere C, Quaine F (2015) Blind separation of surface electromyographic mixtures from two finger extensor muscles. In: International conference on latent variable analysis and signal separation. Springer, pp 481–488Google Scholar
  12. Dogadov A, Serviere C, Quaine F (2016) Extraction of EI and EDM muscle sources from surface electromyographic signals using delay estimation. In: Bio-engineering for smart technologies (BioSMART), 2016 international conference on. IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  13. Farina D, Merletti R (2004) Methods for estimating muscle fibre conduction velocity from surface electromyographic signals. Med Biol Eng Comput 42(4):432–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farina D, Merletti R, Indino B, Nazzaro M, Pozzo M (2002) Surface EMG crosstalk between knee extensor muscles: experimental and model results. Muscle Nerve 26(5):681–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina D, Lucas M-F, Doncarli C (2008) Optimized wavelets for blind separation of nonstationary surface myoelectric signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(1):78–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flury N, Koenig I, Radlinger L (2017) Crosstalk considerations in studies evaluating pelvic floor muscles using surface electromyography in women: a scoping review. Arch Gynaecol Obstet 295(4):799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frahm KS, Jensen MB, Farina D, Andersen OK (2012) Surface EMG crosstalk during phasic involuntary muscle activation in the nociceptive withdrawal reflex. Muscle Nerve 46(2):228–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallina A, Peters S, Neva JL, Boyd LA, Garland SJ (2017) Selectivity of conventional electrodes for recording motor evoked potentials: an investigation with high-density surface electromyography. Muscle Nerve 55(6):828–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganter N, Witte K, Edelmann-Nusser J, Heller M, Schwab K, Witte H (2007) Spectral parameters of surface electromyography and performance in swim bench exercises during the training of elite and junior swimmers. Eur J Sport Sci 7(3):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gazzoni M, Farina D, Merletti R (2004) A new method for the extraction and classification of single motor unit action potentials from surface EMG signals. J Neurosci Methods 136(2):165–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginn KA, Halaki M (2015) Do surface electrode recordings validly represent latissimus dorsi activation patterns during shoulder tasks? J Electromyogr Kinesiol 25(1):8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerrero F, García P, Spinelli E (2017) Signal modes for design-oriented analysis of active sEMG spatial filter electrodes. In: VII Latin American congress on biomedical engineering CLAIB 2016, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia, October 26th–28th, 2016. Springer, pp 504–507Google Scholar
  23. Holobar A, Farina D (2014) Blind source identification from the multichannel surface electromyogram. Physiol Meas 35(7):R143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hug F (2011) Can muscle coordination be precisely studied by surface electromyography? J Electromyogr Kinesiol 21(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hussain J, Sundaraj K, Low YF, Lam C, Sundaraj S, Ali MA (2018) A systematic review on fatigue analysis in triceps brachii using surface electromyography. Biomed Signal Process Control 40:396–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Islam MA, Sundaraj K, Ahmad RB, Sundaraj S, Ahamed NU, Ali MA (2014a) Cross-talk in mechanomyographic signals from the forearm muscles during sub-maximal to maximal isometric grip force. PLoS One 9(5):e96628PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Islam MA, Sundaraj K, Ahmad RB, Sundaraj S, Ahamed NU, Ali MA (2014b) Longitudinal, lateral and transverse axes of forearm muscles influence the crosstalk in the mechanomyographic signals during isometric wrist postures. PLoS One 9(8):e104280PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Islam A, Sundaraj K, Ahmad RB, Sundaraj S, Ahamed NU, Ali M (2015) Analysis of crosstalk in the mechanomyographic signals generated by forearm muscles during different wrist postures. Muscle Nerve 51(6):899–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen MB, Frahm KS, Manresa JB (2012) Andersen OK Novel cross correlation technique allows crosstalk resistant reflex detection from surface EMG. In: Conference proceedings of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society. IEEE, pp 3531–3534Google Scholar
  30. Jiroumaru T, Kurihara T, Isaka T (2014) Establishment of a recording method for surface electromyography in the iliopsoas muscle. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 24(4):445–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonkers I, Nuyens G, Seghers J, Nuttin M, Spaepen A (2004) Muscular effort in multiple sclerosis patients during powered wheelchair manoeuvres. Clin Biomech 19(9):929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kellis E (1998) Quantification of quadriceps and hamstring antagonist activity. Sports Med 25(1):37–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kilner J, Baker S, Lemon R (2002) A novel algorithm to remove electrical cross-talk between surface EMG recordings and its application to the measurement of short-term synchronisation in humans. J Physiol 538(3):919–930PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koh TJ, Grabiner MD (1992) Cross talk in surface electromyograms of human hamstring muscles. J Orthop Res 10(5):701–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koh TJ, Grabiner MD (1993) Evaluation of methods to minimize cross talk in surface electromyography. J Biomech 26:151–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kong Y-K, Hallbeck MS, Jung M-C (2010) Crosstalk effect on surface electromyogram of the forearm flexors during a static grip task. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20(6):1223–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuiken TA, Lowery M, Stoykov N (2003) The effect of subcutaneous fat on myoelectric signal amplitude and cross-talk. Prosthet Orthot Int 27(1):48–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Léouffre M, Quaine F, Serviere C (2013) Testing of instantaneity hypothesis for blind source separation of extensor indicis and extensor digiti minimi surface electromyograms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23(4):908–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowery MM, Stoykov NS, Kuiken TA (2003) A simulation study to examine the use of cross-correlation as an estimate of surface EMG cross talk. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1324–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall P, Murphy B (2003) The validity and reliability of surface EMG to assess the neuromuscular response of the abdominal muscles to rapid limb movement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13(5):477–489PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Mesin L (2018) Optimal spatio-temporal filter for the reduction of crosstalk in surface electromyogram. J Neural Eng 15(1):016013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mesin L, Smith S, Hugo S, Viljoen S, Hanekom T (2009) Effect of spatial filtering on crosstalk reduction in surface EMG recordings. Med Eng Phys 31(3):374–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mezzarane RA, Kohn AF (2009) A method to estimate EMG crosstalk between two muscles based on the silent period following an H-reflex. Med Eng Phys 31(10):1331–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mogk JP, Keir PJ (2003) Crosstalk in surface electromyography of the proximal forearm during gripping tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13(1):63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naik GR, Kumar DK, Arjunan SP, Palaniswami M, Begg R (2006) Limitations and applications of ICA for surface electromyogram. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society, 2006. EMBS’06. 28th Annual international conference of the IEEE. IEEE, pp 5739–5742Google Scholar
  46. Naik GR, Guo Y, Nguyen H (2013) A new approach to improve the quality of biosensor signals using fast independent component analysis: feasibility study using EMG recordings. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), 2013 35th annual international conference of the IEEE. IEEE, pp 1927–1929Google Scholar
  47. Nazarpour K (2005) Surface EMG signals pattern recognition utilizing an adaptive crosstalk suppression preprocessor. In: 2005 ICSC congress on computational intelligence methods and applications. IEEE, p 3Google Scholar
  48. Nene A, Byrne C, Hermens H (2004) Is rectus femoris really a part of quadriceps? Assessment of rectus femoris function during gait in able-bodied adults. Gait Posture 20(1):1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orizio C, Diemont B, Esposito F, Alfonsi E, Parrinello G, Moglia A, Veicsteinas A (1999) Surface mechanomyogram reflects the changes in the mechanical properties of muscle at fatigue. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 80(4):276–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pérot C, Mora I (1993) H reflexes in close muscles: cross-talk or genuine responses? Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 89(2):104–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raiteri BJ, Cresswell AG, Lichtwark GA (2015) Ultrasound reveals negligible cocontraction during isometric plantar flexion and dorsiflexion despite the presence of antagonist electromyographic activity. J Appl Physiol 118(10):1193–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raiteri BJ, Hug F, Cresswell AG, Lichtwark GA (2016) Quantification of muscle co-contraction using supersonic shear wave imaging. J Biomech 49(3):493–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rantanen V, Ilves M, Vehkaoja A, Kontunen A, Lylykangas J, Mäkelä E, Rautiainen M, Surakka V, Lekkala J (2016) A survey on the feasibility of surface EMG in facial pacing. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). 2016 IEEE 38th annual international conference of the. IEEE, pp 1688–1691Google Scholar
  54. Ridderikhoff A, Daffertshofer A, Peper CLE, Beek PJ (2005) Mirrored EMG activity during unimanual rhythmic movements. Neurosci Lett 381(3):228–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rudroff T, Staudenmann D, Enoka RM (2008) Electromyographic measures of muscle activation and changes in muscle architecture of human elbow flexors during fatiguing contractions. J Appl Physiol 104(6):1720–1726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saito A, Watanabe K, Akima H (2013) The highest antagonistic coactivation of the vastus intermedius muscle among quadriceps femoris muscles during isometric knee flexion. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23(4):831–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Selvanayagam VS, Riek S, Carroll TJ (2011) A systematic method to quantify the presence of cross-talk in stimulus-evoked EMG responses: implications for TMS studies. J Appl Physiol 112(2):259–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shahid S, Walker J, Lyons GM, Byrne CA, Nene AV (2005) Application of higher order statistics techniques to EMG signals to characterize the motor unit action potential. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52(7):1195–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Staudenmann D, Taube W (2015) Brachialis muscle activity can be assessed with surface electromyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 25(2):199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Than C, Tosovic D, Seidl L, Brown JM (2016) The effect of exercise hypertrophy and disuse atrophy on muscle contractile properties: a mechanomyographic analysis. Eur J Appl Physiol 116(11–12):2155–2165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tosovic D, Than C, Brown J (2016) The effects of accumulated muscle fatigue on the mechanomyographic waveform: implications for injury prediction. Eur J Appl Physiol 116(8):1485–1494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Urbanek H, van der Smagt P (2016) iEMG: imaging electromyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 27:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Vugt J, Van Dijk J (2001) A convenient method to reduce crosstalk in surface EMG. Clin Neurophysiol 112(4):583–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Viljoen S, Hanekom T, Farina D (2007) Effect of characteristics of dynamic muscle contraction on crosstalk in surface electromyography recordings. S Afr Inst Electr Eng 98:18–28Google Scholar
  65. Vuskovic M, Li X (1996) Blind separation of surface EMG signals. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society, 1996. Bridging disciplines for biomedicine. proceedings of the 18th annual international conference of the IEEE. IEEE, pp 1478–1480Google Scholar
  66. Watanabe K, Akima H (2009) Cross-talk from adjacent muscle has a negligible effect on surface electromyographic activity of vastus intermedius muscle during isometric contraction. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19(4):e280–e289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winter D, Fuglevand A, Archer S (1994) Crosstalk in surface electromyography: theoretical and practical estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 4(1):15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xie H-B, Zheng Y-P, Guo J-Y (2009) Classification of the mechanomyogram signal using a wavelet packet transform and singular value decomposition for multifunction prosthesis control. Physiol Meas 30(5):441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yung M, Wells R (2013) Changes in muscle geometry during forearm pronation and supination and their relationships to EMG cross-correlation measures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23(3):664–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zipp P (1982) Effect of electrode geometry on the selectivity of myoelectric recordings with surface electrodes. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 50(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechatronic EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP)ArauMalaysia
  2. 2.Centre for Telecommunication Research and Innovation (CeTRI), Fakulti Kejuruteraan Elektronik & Kejuruteraan Komputer (FKEKK)Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM)Durian TunggalMalaysia
  3. 3.Daffodil International UniversityDhakaBangladesh

Personalised recommendations