FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Neurosci / Extramuscular Recording of Spontaneous EMG Activity and Tran...
Frontiers in neuroscience2020; 14; 652; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00652

Extramuscular Recording of Spontaneous EMG Activity and Transcranial Electrical Elicited Motor Potentials in Horses: Characteristics of Different Subcutaneous and Surface Electrode Types and Practical Guidelines.

Abstract: Adhesive surface electrodes are worthwhile to explore in detail as alternative to subcutaneous needle electrodes to assess myogenic evoked potentials (MEP) in human and horses. Extramuscular characteristics of both electrode types and different brands are compared in simultaneous recordings by also considering electrode impedances and background noise under not mechanically secured (not taped) and taped conditions. Methods: In five ataxic and one non-ataxic horses, transcranial electrical MEPs, myographic activity, and noise were simultaneously recorded from subcutaneous needle (three brands) together with pre-gelled surface electrodes (five brands) on four extremities. In three horses, the impedances of four adjacent-placed surface-electrode pairs of different brands were measured and compared. The similarity between needle and surface EMGs was assessed by cross-correlation functions, pairwise comparison of motor latency times (MLT), and amplitudes. The influence of electrode noise and impedance on the signal quality was assessed by a failure rate (FR) function. Geometric means and impedance ranges under not taped and taped conditions were derived for each brand. Results: High coherencies between EMGs of needle-surface pairs degraded to 0.7 at moderate and disappeared at strong noise. MLTs showed sub-millisecond simultaneous differences while sequential variations were several milliseconds. Subcutaneous MEP amplitudes were somewhat lower than epidermal. The impedances of subcutaneous needle electrodes were below 900 Ω and FR = 0. For four brands, the FR for surface electrodes was between 0 and 80% and declined to below 25% after taping. A remaining brand (27G DSN2260 Medtronic) revealed impedances over 100 kΩ and FR = 100% under not taped and taped conditions. Conclusions: Subcutaneous needle and surface electrodes yield highly coherent EMGs and TES-MEP signals. When taped and allowing sufficient settling time, adhesive surface-electrode signals may approach the signal quality of subcutaneous needle electrodes but still depend on unpredictable conditions of the skin. The study provides a new valuable practical guidance for selection of extramuscular EMG electrodes. This study on horses shares common principles for the choice of adhesive surface or sc needle electrodes in human applications such as in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of motor functions of the brain and spinal cord.
Copyright © 2020 Journée, Journée, Reed, Berends, de Bruijn and Delesalle.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-07-17 PubMed ID: 32765207PubMed Central: PMC7379335DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00652Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research study is about an exploration of adhesive surface electrodes as a new way to assess myogenic evoked potentials in humans and horses, and provides a comparison to traditional subcutaneous needle electrodes.

Objective and Methodology of the Study

  • The core objective of the study was to compare the use of adhesive surface electrodes with that of subcutaneous needle electrodes to assess myogenic evoked potentials (MEPs) in humans and horses. The researchers wanted to understand the variations in extramuscular characteristics of both types of electrodes and compare results between different brands.
  • The study involved six horses (five ataxic and one non-ataxic) in which transcranial electrical MEPs, myographic activity, and noise were simultaneously recorded using three brands of subcutaneous needle electrodes and five brands of pre-gelled surface electrodes on their four extremities. The electrodes were evaluated under conditions where they were taped and not taped.
  • The researchers also measured and compared the impedances of four adjacent surface-electrode pairs from different brands in three horses.
  • The similarity between the needle and surface electromyography (EMG) was measured using cross-correlation functions, pairwise comparison of motor latency times (MLT), and amplitudes. The influence of electrode noise and impedance on the signal quality was measured using a failure rate (FR) function.

Results of the Study

  • The study found high coherencies between EMGs of needle-surface pairs that degraded to 0.7 at moderate noise levels and disappeared at high noise levels. There were also sub-millisecond variations in MLTs recorded simultaneously while sequential variations were several milliseconds.
  • The study found that subcutaneous MEP amplitudes were somewhat lower than epidermal ones and the impedances of subcutaneous needle electrodes were below 900 Ω with FR equal to 0.
  • For four brands, the FR for surface electrodes fluctuated between 0 and 80% and declined to below 25% after taping. However, a remaining brand revealed impedances over 100 kΩ and FR equaled 100% even under not taped and taped conditions.

Conclusions of the Study

  • Both types of electrodes—subcutaneous needle and surface electrodes—record highly coherent EMGs and TES-MEP signals. Under conditions where they are taped and given adequate settling time, adhesive surface-electrode signals can have similar quality to that of subcutaneous needle electrodes despite some unpredictability due to skin conditions.
  • This research not only grants valuable insights into electrode selection for extramuscular EMG studies in horses, but also shares common principles applicable to human studies such as intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of brain and spinal cord motor functions.

Cite This Article

APA
Journée SL, Journée HL, Reed SM, Berends HI, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. (2020). Extramuscular Recording of Spontaneous EMG Activity and Transcranial Electrical Elicited Motor Potentials in Horses: Characteristics of Different Subcutaneous and Surface Electrode Types and Practical Guidelines. Front Neurosci, 14, 652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00652

Publication

Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
NlmUniqueID: 101478481
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Pages: 652
PII: 652

Researcher Affiliations

Journée, Sanne Lotte
  • Equine Diagnostics, Wyns, Netherlands.
  • Research Group of Comparative Physiology, Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Journée, Henricus Louis
  • Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
  • Department of Orthopedics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Reed, Stephen Michael
  • Rood & Riddle Equine Hospital, Lexington, KY, United States.
  • M.H. Gluck Equine Research Center, Department of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Berends, Hanneke Irene
  • Department of Orthopedics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
de Bruijn, Cornelis Marinus
  • Wolvega Equine Clinic, Oldeholtpade, Netherlands.
Delesalle, Cathérine John Ghislaine
  • Research Group of Comparative Physiology, Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Ashram YA, Yingling CD. Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology. .
  2. Aydinlar EI, Dikmen PY, Kocak M, Baykan N, Seymen N, Ozek MM. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring of Motor-Evoked Potentials in Infants Undergoing Surgery of the Spine and Spinal Cord.. J Clin Neurophysiol 2019 Jan;36(1):60-66.
    doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000523pubmed: 30247385google scholar: lookup
  3. Bellardine Black CL, Stromberg K, van Balen GP, Ghanem RN, Breedveld RW, Tieleman RG. Is surface ECG a useful surrogate for subcutaneous ECG?. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2010 Feb;33(2):135-45.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02616.xpubmed: 19930107google scholar: lookup
  4. Berends HI, Journée HL. Influence of the Montage of Stimulation Electrodes for Intraoperative Neuromonitoring During Orthopedic Spine Surgery.. J Clin Neurophysiol 2018 Sep;35(5):419-425.
    doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000498pubmed: 30024455google scholar: lookup
  5. Brostrom S, Jennum P, Lose G. Motor evoked potentials from the striated urethral sphincter: a comparison of concentric needle and surface electrodes.. Neurourol Urodyn 2003;22(2):123-9.
    doi: 10.1002/nau.10030pubmed: 12579629google scholar: lookup
  6. Crum BA, Strommen JA. Intraoperative Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Recording. .
    doi: 10.1016/S1567-4231(07)08024-0google scholar: lookup
  7. Deletis V, Sala F. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts.. Clin Neurophysiol 2008 Feb;119(2):248-64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.135pubmed: 18053764google scholar: lookup
  8. Ertekin C, Uludag B, On A, Yetimalar Y, Ertas M, Colakoglu Z, Arac N. Motor-evoked potentials from various levels of paravertebral muscles in normal subjects and in patients with focal lesions of the spinal cord.. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998 May 1;23(9):1016-22.
    doi: 10.1097/00007632-199805010-00010pubmed: 9589540google scholar: lookup
  9. Geddes LA. Interface design for bioelectrode systems. IEEE Spectr 9 41–48.
    doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.1972.5218524google scholar: lookup
  10. Giroux B, Lamontagne M. Comparisons between surface electrodes and intramuscular wire electrodes in isometric and dynamic conditions.. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990 Nov;30(7):397-405.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(89)90256-Xpubmed: 2261884google scholar: lookup
  11. Godin DT, Parker PA, Scott RN. Noise characteristics of stainless-steel surface electrodes.. Med Biol Eng Comput 1991 Nov;29(6):585-90.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02446089pubmed: 1813753google scholar: lookup
  12. Gonzalez AA, Cheongsiatmoy J, Shilian P, Parikh P. Comparison of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Amplitude Responses Between Intramuscular and Subcutaneous Needles in Proximal Thigh Muscle.. J Clin Neurophysiol 2018 Sep;35(5):431-435.
    doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000490pubmed: 29877909google scholar: lookup
  13. Grimnes S. Impedance measurement of individual skin surface electrodes.. Med Biol Eng Comput 1983 Nov;21(6):750-5.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02464038pubmed: 6664135google scholar: lookup
  14. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures.. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74.
    doi: 10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00027-4pubmed: 11018445google scholar: lookup
  15. Huigen E, Peper A, Grimbergen CA. Investigation into the origin of the noise of surface electrodes.. Med Biol Eng Comput 2002 May;40(3):332-8.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02344216pubmed: 12195981google scholar: lookup
  16. Journée HL, Polak HE, de Kleuver M. Influence of electrode impedance on threshold voltage for transcranial electrical stimulation in motor evoked potential monitoring.. Med Biol Eng Comput 2004 Jul;42(4):557-61.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02350999pubmed: 15320467google scholar: lookup
  17. Journée SL, Delesalle CJG, de Bruijn CM, Bergmann W, Journée HL. Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) as a possible novel alternative to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to assess the motor function of the spinal cord for clinical diagnosis in horses. Equine Vet. J. 46:10.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12323_20google scholar: lookup
  18. Journée SL, Journée HL, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Design and optimization of a novel method for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord by multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation in horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 35 793–800.
    doi: 10.1016/J.JEVS.2015.07.014google scholar: lookup
  19. Journée SL, Journée HL, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation (TES): normative data for motor evoked potentials in healthy horses.. BMC Vet Res 2018 Apr 3;14(1):121.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1447-7pmc: PMC5883272pubmed: 29615034google scholar: lookup
  20. Kaneko K, Fuchigami Y, Morita H, Ofuji A, Kawai S. Effect of coil position and stimulus intensity in transcranial magnetic stimulation on human brain.. J Neurol Sci 1997 Apr 15;147(2):155-9.
    pubmed: 9106121doi: 10.1016/s0022-510x(96)05324-5google scholar: lookup
  21. Kaneko K, Kawai S, Fuchigami Y, Shiraishi G, Ito T. Effect of stimulus intensity and voluntary contraction on corticospinal potentials following transcranial magnetic stimulation.. J Neurol Sci 1996 Jul;139(1):131-6.
    doi: 10.1016/0022-510X(96)00050-0pubmed: 8836984google scholar: lookup
  22. Laferriere P, Lemaire ED, Chan ADC. Surface electromyographic signals using dry electrodes. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 60 3259–3268.
    doi: 10.1109/TIM.2011.2164279google scholar: lookup
  23. Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring - a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring.. Clin Neurophysiol 2013 Dec;124(12):2291-316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.025pubmed: 24055297google scholar: lookup
  24. Mayhew IG, Washbourne JR. Magnetic motor evoked potentials in ponies.. J Vet Intern Med 1996 Sep-Oct;10(5):326-9.
    pubmed: 8884720doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.1996.tb02071.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Merletti R, Botter A, Barone U. Detection and conditioning of surface EMG signals. .
  26. Neuloh G, Schramm J. Monitoring of motor evoked potentials compared with somatosensory evoked potentials and microvascular Doppler ultrasonography in cerebral aneurysm surgery.. J Neurosurg 2004 Mar;100(3):389-99.
    doi: 10.3171/jns.2004.100.3.0389pubmed: 15035273google scholar: lookup
  27. Nollet H, Deprez P, van Ham L, Dewulf J, Decleir A, Vanderstraeten G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: normal values of magnetic motor evoked potentials in 84 normal horses and influence of height, weight, age and sex.. Equine Vet J 2004 Jan;36(1):51-7.
    pubmed: 14756372doi: 10.2746/0425164044864660google scholar: lookup
  28. Nollet H, Deprez P, Van Ham L, Verschooten F, Vanderstraeten G. The use of magnetic motor evoked potentials in horses with cervical spinal cord disease.. Equine Vet J 2002 Mar;34(2):156-63.
    doi: 10.2746/042516402776767204pubmed: 11902758google scholar: lookup
  29. Nollet H, Van Ham L, Deprez P, Vanderstraeten G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: review of the technique, basic principles and applications.. Vet J 2003 Jul;166(1):28-42.
    pubmed: 12788015doi: 10.1016/s1090-0233(03)00025-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  30. Nollet H, Van Ham L, Dewulf J, Vanderstraeten G, Deprez P. Standardization of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the horse.. Vet J 2003 Nov;166(3):244-50.
    pubmed: 14550735doi: 10.1016/s1090-0233(03)00024-8google scholar: lookup
  31. Piervirgili G, Petracca F, Merletti R. A new method to assess skin treatments for lowering the impedance and noise of individual gelled Ag-AgCl electrodes.. Physiol Meas 2014 Oct;35(10):2101-18.
    doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/35/10/2101pubmed: 25243492google scholar: lookup
  32. Rijckaert J, Pardon B, Van Ham L, van Loon G, Deprez P. Magnetic Motor Evoked Potential Recording in Horses Using Intramuscular Needle Electrodes and Surface Electrodes.. J Equine Vet Sci 2018 Sep;68:101-107.
    pubmed: 31256880doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.05.218google scholar: lookup
  33. Roy SH, De Luca G, Cheng MS, Johansson A, Gilmore LD, De Luca CJ. Electro-mechanical stability of surface EMG sensors.. Med Biol Eng Comput 2007 May;45(5):447-57.
    doi: 10.1007/s11517-007-0168-zpubmed: 17458582google scholar: lookup
  34. SAS Institute Inc (1999). SAS Institute Inc., SAS/STAT® User’s Guide, 8th Edn Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
  35. Skinner SA, Transfeldt EE, Savik K. Surface electrodes are not sufficient to detect neurotonic discharges: observations in a porcine model and clinical review of deltoid electromyographic monitoring using multiple electrodes.. J Clin Monit Comput 2008 Apr;22(2):131-9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10877-008-9114-3pubmed: 18335318google scholar: lookup
  36. Szelényi A, Hattingen E, Weidauer S, Seifert V, Ziemann U. Intraoperative motor evoked potential alteration in intracranial tumor surgery and its relation to signal alteration in postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.. Neurosurgery 2010 Aug;67(2):302-13.
    doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000371973.46234.46pubmed: 20644415google scholar: lookup
  37. Szelényi A, Kothbauer KF, Deletis V. Transcranial electric stimulation for intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: Stimulation parameters and electrode montages.. Clin Neurophysiol 2007 Jul;118(7):1586-95.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.008pubmed: 17507288google scholar: lookup
  38. Taji B, Chan ADC, Shirmohammadi S. Effect of pressure on skin-electrode impedance in wearable biomedical measurement devices. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 67 1900–1912.
    doi: 10.1109/TIM.2018.2806950google scholar: lookup
  39. Takeda M, Yamaguchi S, Mitsuhara T, Abiko M, Kurisu K. Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2018 Jan;29(1):159-167.
    doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.012pubmed: 29173429google scholar: lookup
  40. Verheyen T, Decloedt A, Clercq D, De Deprez P, Sys SU, Loon G. Electrocardiography in horses – part 1: how to make a good recording. Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 79 331–336.
  41. Verin E, Straus C, Demoule A, Mialon P, Derenne JP, Similowski T. Validation of improved recording site to measure phrenic conduction from surface electrodes in humans.. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2002 Mar;92(3):967-74.
    doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2001pubmed: 11842028google scholar: lookup
  42. Wijnberg ID, Franssen H. The potential and limitations of quantitative electromyography in equine medicine.. Vet J 2016 Mar;209:23-31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.024pubmed: 26831156google scholar: lookup
  43. Wijnberg ID, van der Kolk JH, Franssen H, Breukink HJ. Needle electromyography in the horse compared with its principles in man: a review.. Equine Vet J 2003 Jan;35(1):9-17.
    pubmed: 12553457doi: 10.2746/042516403775467414google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Gadella MC, Dulfer SE, Absalom AR, Lange F, Scholtens-Henzen CHM, Groen RJM, Wapstra FH, Faber C, Tamási K, Sahinovic MM, Drost G. Comparing Motor-Evoked Potential Characteristics of NEedle versus suRFACE Recording Electrodes during Spinal Cord Monitoring-The NERFACE Study Part I.. J Clin Med 2023 Feb 10;12(4).
    doi: 10.3390/jcm12041404pubmed: 36835940google scholar: lookup
  2. Journée SL, Journée HL, Berends HI, Reed SM, Bergmann W, de Bruijn CM, Delesalle CJG. Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses.. Front Neurosci 2022;16:851463.
    doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.851463pubmed: 35573305google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.