CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Muscle activation and electromyography studiesSports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Inter-individual variability in the patterns of responses for electromyography and mechanomyography during cycle ergometry using an RPE-clamp model

Cochrane-Snyman, Kristen C., Housh, Terry J., Smith, Cory M., Hill, Ethan C., Jenkins, Nathaniel D. M., Schmidt, Richard J., Johnson, Glen O.·2016·European Journal of Applied Physiology
DOI 10.1007/s00421-016-3394-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To examine inter-individual variability versus composite models for the patterns of responses for electromyography (EMG) and mechanomyography (MMG) versus time relationships during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry using a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) clamp model.Methods EMG amplitude (amplitude root-mean-square, RMS), EMG mean power frequency (MPF), MMG-RMS, and MMG-MPF were collected during two, 60-min rides at a moderate (RPE at the gas exchange threshold; RPEGET) and heavy (RPE at 15 % above the GET; RPEGET+15 %) intensity when RPE was held constant (clamped). Composite (mean) and individual responses for EMG and MMG parameters were compared during each 60-min ride.Results There was great inter-individual variability for each EMG and MMG parameters at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %. Composite models showed decreases in EMG-RMS (r (2) = -0.92 and R (2) = 0.96), increases in EMG-MPF (R (2) = 0.90), increases in MMG-RMS (r (2) = 0.81 and 0.55), and either no change or a decrease (r (2) = 0.34) in MMG-MPF at RPEGET and RPEGET+15 %, respectively.Conclusions The results of the present study indicated that there were differences between composite and individual patterns of responses for EMG and MMG parameters during moderate and heavy cycle ergometry at a constant RPE. Thus, composite models did not represent the unique muscle activation strategies exhibited by individual responses when cycling in the moderate and heavy intensity domains when using an RPE-clamp model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00421-016-3394-y

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cochrane-Snyman, K. C., Housh, T. J., Smith, C. M., Hill, E. C., Jenkins, N. D. M., Schmidt, R. J., & Johnson, G. O.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Cochrane-Snyman, Kristen C.
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-06-20
Volume
116
Issue
9
Pages
1639-1649
ISSN
  • 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-6319
  • 1439-6327
DOI
10.1007/s00421-016-3394-y
OpenAlex
W2468254024
Cited by
20
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
interindividual variability, electromyography, mechanomyography, cycle ergometry, rating of perceived exertion, muscle activation strategies, mean power frequency, EMG amplitude, composite model
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Electromyography, Exercise Test, Physical Exertion, Female, Humans, Male, Myography, Perception, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Exercise, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review