Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Terminology matrix

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2021.102565Get rights and content

Abstract

Consensus on the definition of common terms in electromyography (EMG) research promotes consistency in the EMG literature and facilitates the integration of research across the field. This paper presents a matrix developed within the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, providing definitions for terms used in the EMG literature. The definitions for physiological and technical terms that are common in EMG research are included in two tables, with key information on each definition provided in a comment section. A brief outline of some basic principles for recording and analyzing EMG is included in an appendix, to provide researchers new to EMG with background and context for understanding the definitions of physiological and technical terms. This terminology matrix can be used as a reference to aid researchers new to EMG in reviewing the EMG literature.

Introduction

Consensus on the definition and use of common terms in electromyography (EMG) research facilitates the clear communication of results from EMG studies across a diverse range of disciplines (physiology, biomechanics, engineering, clinical neuroscience and medical sciences). This paper presents an overview of terminology in the EMG literature and provides definitions for key terms, encompassing both physiological and technical topics. It is one of a series of articles within the Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project, which aims to develop consensus-based matrices to guide decision-making in EMG research (Hodges, 2020). The terminology matrix is designed to be accessible to those with either a clinical or an engineering/technical background. It also serves as a reference to facilitate reviews of the EMG literature and can direct readers to other matrices within the CEDE project which address specific EMG topics (Besomi et al., 2020, Besomi et al., 2019).

Section snippets

Methods

The preparation of the terminology matrix followed a three-step process: (1) development of the list of terms and corresponding definitions to be covered in the matrix, (2) refinement of the definitions by the steering committee and (3) implementation of feedback from the CEDE panel of experts using a Delphi process to reach consensus on each definition. Further details on the CEDE project, including the method for expert group selection, and the process for the development of the CEDE

Results

All 18 experts who agreed to participate in the Delphi process replied to the first-round questionnaire (100% response rate). The first version of the terminology matrix was composed of 74 terms in total (31 physiological terms and 43 technical terms). After round one of questionnaires, 14/31 of the physiological terms and 3/43 of the technical terms did not reach consensus (i.e., the criteria that > 70% of scores were between 7 and 9 and < 15% of scores were between 1 and 3, with an IQR < 2,

Discussion

The present study was undertaken to establish consensus on the definitions of common terms used in EMG literature, covering both physiological and technical terms. Previous matrices in the CEDE project have highlighted the need for consensus in the definition and scope of common EMG terminologies (Besomi et al., 2020, Besomi et al., 2019). The definitions and comments on each term have been developed by integrating input from an expert panel with a diverse range of expertise using a Delphi

Conclusion

The aim of the terminology matrix is to provide expert consensus from the CEDE project team on the definition and correct usage of common EMG terms. This matrix does not replace formal training or education in EMG practice. Rather, it is intended for use as a reference to aid in the consistent use of terminology when reporting results from EMG studies and clinical applications

Funding

This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (Program Grant: APP1091302). MML is supported by the European Research Council Grant (ERC-2014-CoG-646923_DBSModel). LM is supported by the European Research Council Grant (ERC-2014-CoG-646923_DBSModel) and the Irish Research Council (EPSPD/2020/108). PWH is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (APP1102905). MB is supported by the University of Queensland Research Training

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The CEDE group wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Prof. Dario Liebermann, the special editor for this series, for his critical assessment of the first version of this paper which substantially helped in refining it.

References (9)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text