Comparative evaluation of motor unit architecture models.
We present a statistical evaluation and comparison of the simulation outcomes of nine different motor unit architecture modeling approaches, which derive from combinations of four motor unit territory placement algorithms with two innervation pattern algorithms (one of the combinations allows for a double approach). We test how well the outcomes of these models agree with well-established physiological principles. Our results show that algorithms based on independent and uniformly distributed territory placement always lead to an unwanted edge effect consisting in a decay of the number of overlapping motor unit territories toward the edge of the muscle cross section. This edge effect interferes with the properties of the simulated motor units. On the other hand, controlled placement of motor units, so as to minimize the spatial variance of muscle fiber density (MFD), can result in simulated motor units which better reflect the empirical evidence currently available about motor unit architecture.
Navallas
Javier
J
Department of Electric and Electronic Engineerging, Public University of Navarra, 31006, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain. javier.navallas@unavarra.es
Malanda
Armando
A
Gila
Luis
L
Rodriguez
Javier
J
Rodriguez
Ignacio
I
D000465:Algorithms; D006801:Humans; D008959:Models, Neurological; D009046:Motor Neurons / Q000166:cytology* / Q000502:physiology; D018485:Muscle Fibers, Skeletal / Q000166:cytology; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000294:innervation
Muscle Nerve. 2001 Jan;24(1):4-17
11150961
Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Mar;112(3):464-71
11222968
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999 Jul;46(7):821-9
10396900
J Neurosci. 1988 Jun;8(6):2142-52
3385491
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000 Feb;47(2):192-201
10721626
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2004 Jul;42(4):446-54
15320453
Arch Neurol. 1973 Oct;29(4):210-4
4353846
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004 Apr;96(4):1486-95
15016793
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1980 Jun;43(6):469-74
7205287
J Physiol. 1973 Nov;234(3):749-65
4148753
Muscle Nerve. 1980 Jul-Aug;3(4):360-1
7412780
J Neurophysiol. 1965 May;28:581-98
14328455
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Sep;50(9):1052-62
12943273
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997 Jun;105(3):181-8
9216486
J Neurophysiol. 1988 Jul;60(1):30-45
3404221
J Neurophysiol. 1987 Jun;57(6):1730-45
3598628
Math Biosci. 2009 Jan;217(1):64-76
18976675
Muscle Nerve. 1998 Jul;21(7):878-86
9626247
Muscle Nerve. 2000 Mar;23(3):361-7
10679712
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005 Feb;52(2):171-83
15709654
J Physiol. 1973 Apr;230(2):359-70
4350770
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Feb;169(1):37-49
16273406
J Neurophysiol. 1993 Dec;70(6):2470-88
8120594
J Physiol. 1989 May;412:1-21
2600827
Muscle Nerve. 1987 Nov-Dec;10(9):826-36
3683454
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1581-90
17615125
Muscle Nerve. 2000 Nov;23(11):1647-66
11054744
Acta Physiol Scand. 1957 Mar 7;38(3-4):331-54
13410631
J Physiol. 1992 Mar;448:677-95
1593483
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008 Feb;18(1):26-34
16963279
Muscle Nerve. 2005 Apr;31(4):475-80
15617094
Acta Anat (Basel). 1955;23(2):127-42
14349537
Arch Ital Biol. 1992 Jan;130(1):19-66
1610265
Muscle Nerve. 1995 Oct;18(10):1187-95
7659113
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006 Apr;44(4):298-310
16937171
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999 Jul;46(7):810-20
10396899
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Mar;125(1):14-8
10100971
J Neurophysiol. 1965 May;28:560-80
14328454
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1993;3(3):157-73
20719627
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002 Jan;92(1):235-47
11744666
Muscle Nerve Suppl. 2002;11:S46-54
12116285
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983 Jul;56(1):52-62
6190633
Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 May;112(5):869-78
11336904
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008 Feb;18(1):35-43
16963280
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006 Oct;53(10):1926-33
17019856
Muscle Nerve. 1990 Dec;13(12):1133-45
1702521
Exp Brain Res. 1981;43(3-4):377-82
7262230