title: Comparison of muscle activity patterns of transfemoral amputees and control subjects during walking.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Only few studies have looked at electromyography (EMG) during prosthetic gait. Differences in EMG between normal and prosthetic gait for stance and swing phase were never separately analyzed. These differences can give valuable information if and how muscle activity changes in prosthetic gait.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this study EMG activity during gait of the upper leg muscles of six transfemoral amputees, measured inside their own socket, was compared to that of five controls. On and off timings for stance and swing phase were determined together with the level of co-activity and inter-subject variability.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Gait phase changes in amputees mainly consisted of an increased double support phase preceding the prosthetic stance phase. For the subsequent (pre) swing phase the main differences were found in muscle activity patterns of the prosthetic limb, more muscles were active during this phase and/or with prolonged duration. The overall inter-subject variability was larger in amputees compared to controls.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Biomedical Signals and Systems group, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede 7500 AE, The Netherlands. e.c.wentink@utwente.nl
authors.forename: Eva C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Wentink
authors.forename: Erik C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Prinsen
authors.forename: Johan S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Rietman
authors.forename: Peter H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Veltink
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000674:Amputees / Q000534:rehabilitation; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004576:Electromyography; D005269:Femur; D005684:Gait / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000503:physiopathology*; D016138:Walking / Q000502:physiology
references.citation: Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000 Aug;24(2):117-25
references.pmid: 11061198
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2005 Dec;22(4):346-50
references.pmid: 16274917
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Nov;77(11):1209-14
references.pmid: 8931539
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2010 Oct;104(4):2092-102
references.pmid: 20685924
references.citation: Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011;2011:975193
references.pmid: 21941531
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2009 Jan;56(1):65-73
references.pmid: 19224720
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Aug;76(8):736-43
references.pmid: 7632129
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2004 Feb;19(1):50-7
references.pmid: 14741303
references.citation: J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Aug 10;9:55
references.pmid: 22882763
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Aug;92(8):1311-25
references.pmid: 21714957
references.citation: J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011 Dec;21(6):1004-10
references.pmid: 21986038
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1978 Sep;25(5):413-20
references.pmid: 700710
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2013 Feb;37(2):223-8
references.pmid: 22917647
references.citation: J Med Eng Technol. 2009;33(2):130-5
references.pmid: 19205992
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2005 Oct;22(2):164-70
references.pmid: 16139752
references.citation: J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2005 Dec;15(6):564-75
references.pmid: 15946862
references.citation: Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005 Apr;29(1):59-72
references.pmid: 16180378
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Jul;(328):119-28
references.pmid: 8653944
references.citation: Clin Rehabil. 2009 Jul;23(7):659-71
references.pmid: 19470553
references.citation: J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Dec;13(6):519-32
references.pmid: 14573367
references.citation: Gait Posture. 2004 Aug;20(1):1-13
references.pmid: 15196513