Premium
Determinants of mean motor unit size: Impact on estimates of motor unit number
Author(s) -
Doherty Timothy J.,
Stashuk Daniel W.,
Brown William F.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.880161209
Subject(s) - motor unit , mathematics , amplitude , waveform , statistics , medicine , physics , anatomy , quantum mechanics , voltage
The purpose of this study was to compare two fundamentally different methods of deriving the average surface‐detected motor unit action potential (S‐MUAP) size from which to calculate a motor unit number estimate (MUNE), namely: (1) the simple arithmetic average of S‐MUAP parameter values; and (2) a computer‐derived datapoint by datapoint average waveform which takes account of differences in S‐MUAP shapes and durations. Multiple point stimulation was used to collect representative samples of between 11 and 20 S‐MUAPs (mean 15 ± 2 SD) from the median‐innervated thenar muscles of 20 healthy control subjects between 20 and 76 years of age (mean 48 ± 19 SD). The average S‐MUAP size based on peak‐to‐peak amplitude, negative peak amplitude, and negative peak area measurements was calculated using the two different methods. The mean S‐MUAP sizes based on the average waveform were significantly lower in all cases than those based on the simple average of S‐MUAP parameter values. Differences tended to be greatest for MUNEs based on peak‐to‐peak amplitude (35%), less for negative peak amplitude (20%), and least for negative peak area (16%). © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.