The purpose of the study was to quantify the influence of selected motor unit properties and patterns of activity on amplitude cancellation in the simulated surface electromyogram (EMG). The study involved computer simulations of a motor unit population with physiologically defined recruitment and rate coding characteristics that activated muscle fibers whose potentials were recorded on the skin over the muscle. Amplitude cancellation was quantified as the percent difference in signal amplitude when motor unit potentials were summed before and after rectification. The simulations involved varying the level of activation for the motor unit population, the recording configuration, the upper limit of motor unit recruitment, peak discharge rates, the amount of motor unit synchronization, muscle fiber length, the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue, and the motor unit properties that change with advancing age. The results confirmed a previous experimental report (Day SJ and Hulliger M, J Neurophysiol 86: 2144–2158, 2001) that amplitude cancellation in the surface EMG can reach 62% at maximal activation. A decrease in the range of amplitudes of the motor unit potentials, as can occur during fatiguing contractions, increased amplitude cancellation up to ∼85%. Differences in the amount of amplitude cancellation were observed across all simulated conditions, and resulted in substantial changes in the absolute magnitude of the EMG signal. The most profound factors influencing amplitude cancellation were the number of active motor units and the duration of the action potentials. The effects of amplitude cancellation were minimal (<5%) when the EMG amplitude was normalized to maximal values, with the exception of variations in peak discharge rate and recruitment range, which resulted in differences up to 17% in the normalized EMG signal across conditions. These results indicate the amount of amplitude cancellation that can occur in various experimental conditions and its influence on absolute and relative measures of EMG amplitude.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of selected physiological parameters on amplitude cancellation in the simulated surface electromyogram (EMG) and the consequences for spike-triggered averages of motor unit potentials derived from the interference and rectified EMG signals. The surface EMG was simulated from prescribed recruitment and rate coding characteristics of a motor unit population. The potentials of the motor units were detected on the skin over a hand muscle with a bipolar electrode configuration. Averages derived from the EMG signal were generated using the discharge times for each of the 24 motor units with lowest recruitment thresholds from a population of 120 across three conditions: 1) excitation level; 2) motor unit conduction velocity; and 3) motor unit synchronization. The area of the surface-detected potential was compared with potentials averaged from the interference, rectified, and no-cancellation EMGs. The no-cancellation EMG comprised motor unit potentials that were rectified before they were summed, thereby preventing cancellation between the opposite phases of the potentials. The percent decrease in area of potentials extracted from the rectified EMG was linearly related to the amount of amplitude cancellation in the interference EMG signal, with the amount of cancellation influenced by variation in excitation level and motor unit conduction velocity. Motor unit synchronization increased potentials derived from both the rectified and interference EMG signals, although cancellation limited the increase in area for both potentials. These findings document the influence of amplitude cancellation on motor unit potentials averaged from the surface EMG and the consequences for using the procedure to characterize motor unit properties.

This study compared the amount of contralateral activity produced in a homologous muscle by young (18–32 yr) and old (66–80 yr) adults when they performed unilateral isometric and anisometric contractions with a hand muscle. The subjects were not aware that the focus of the study was the contralateral activity. The tasks involved the performance of brief isometric contractions to six target forces, slowly lifting and lowering six inertial loads, and completing a set of 10 repetitions with a heavy load. The unintended force exerted by the contralateral muscle during the isometric contractions increased with target force, but the average force was greater for the old adults (means ± SD; 12.6 ± 15.3%) compared with the young adults (6.91 ± 11.1%). The contralateral activity also increased with load during the anisometric contractions, and the average contralateral force was greater for the old subjects (5.28 ± 6.29%) compared with the young subjects (2.10 ± 3.19%). Furthermore, the average contralateral force for both groups of subjects was greater during the eccentric contractions (4.17 ± 5.24%) compared with the concentric contractions (3.20 ± 5.20%). The rate of change in contralateral activity during the fatigue task also differed between the two groups of subjects. The results indicate that old subjects have a reduced ability to suppress unintended contralateral activity during the performance of goal-directed, unilateral tasks.

Numerous studies of limbs and fingers propose that force–velocity properties of muscle limit maximal voluntary force production during anisometric tasks, i.e., when muscles are shortening or lengthening. Although this proposition appears logical, our study on the simultaneous production of fingertip motion and force disagrees with this commonly held notion. We asked eight consenting adults to use their dominant index fingertip to maximize voluntary downward force against a horizontal surface at specific postures (static trials), and also during an anisometric “scratching” task of rhythmically moving the fingertip along a 5.8 ± 0.5 cm target line. The metronome-timed flexion–extension movement speed varied 36-fold from “slow” (1.0 ± 0.5 cm/s) to “fast” (35.9 ± 7.8 cm/s). As expected, maximal downward voluntary force diminished (44.8 ± 15.6%; p = 0.001) when any motion (slow or fast) was added to the task. Surprisingly, however, a 36-fold increase in speed did not affect this reduction in force magnitude. These remarkable results for such an ordinary task challenge the dominant role often attributed to force–velocity properties of muscle and provide insight into neuromechanical interactions. We propose an explanation that the simultaneous enforcement of mechanical constraints for motion and force reduces the set of feasible motor commands sufficiently so that force–velocity properties cease to be the force-limiting factor. While additional work is necessary to reveal the governing mechanisms, the dramatic influence that the simultaneous enforcement of motion and force constraints has on force output begins to explain the vulnerability of dexterous function to development, aging, and even mild neuromuscular pathology.