Selectivity of conventional electrodes for recording motor evoked potentials: An investigation with high‐density surface electromyography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine whether motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited with transcranial magnetic stimulation and measured with conventional bipolar electromyography (EMG) are influenced by crosstalk from non-target muscles. METHODS: MEPs were recorded in healthy participants using conventional EMG electrodes placed over the extensor carpi radialis muscle (ECR) and high-density surface EMG (HDsEMG). Fifty MEPs at 120% resting and active motor threshold were recorded. To determine the contribution of ECR to the MEPs, the amplitude distribution across HDsEMG channels was correlated with EMG activity recorded during a wrist extension task. RESULTS: Whereas the conventional EMG identified MEPs from ECR in >90% of the stimulations, HDsEMG revealed that spatial amplitude distribution representative of ECR activation was observed less frequently at rest than while holding a contraction (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MEPs recorded with conventional EMG may contain crosstalk from non-target muscles, especially when the stimulation is applied at rest. Muscle Nerve 55: 828-834, 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".