✦ LIBER ✦

Quantitative comparison of motor unit potential parameters between monopolar and concentric needles

✍ Scribed by MD Rai Chi Chan; MD Tao Chang Hsu

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 1991
Tongue: English
Weight: 483 KB
Volume: 14
Category: Article
ISSN: 0148-639X
DOI: 10.1002/mus.880141015

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

Properties of motor unit action potentia

Properties of motor unit action potentials recorded with concentric and monopolar needle electrodes: ADEMG analysis

✍ Dr. Jane E. Howard; Dr. Kevin C. McGill; Dr. Leslie J. Dorfman 📂 Article 📅 1988 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 428 KB

We compared the configurational and firing properties of 7270 motor unit action potentials (MUAPs) recorded with either concentric (CNE) or monopolar (MNE) needle electrodes from the brachial biceps and anterior tibial muscles of 10 healthy young adults (mean age 27 2 4.5 years) using automatic deco

Sensitivity for detecting fibrillation p

Sensitivity for detecting fibrillation potentials: A comparison between concentric and monopolar needle electrodes

✍ Howard B. Sherman; Dr. Francis O. Walker; Peter D. Donofrio 📂 Article 📅 1990 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 300 KB

## Abstract The sensitivity of monopolar and concentric electrodes for detecting fibrillation potentials (FP) has never been formally compared. We studied 35 muscles with FP, sampling 20 sites each with concentric and monopolar needles. The concentric needle identified 0.88 ± 3.44 (mean ± standard

Reliability of quantitative motor unit a

Reliability of quantitative motor unit action potential parameters

✍ Itaru Takehara; Jennifer Chu; Tung-Chou Li; Ira Schwartz 📂 Article 📅 2004 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 64 KB

Motor evoked potentials from the striate

Motor evoked potentials from the striated urethral sphincter: A comparison of concentric needle and surface electrodes

✍ Soren Brostrom; Poul Jennum; Gunnar Lose 📂 Article 📅 2003 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 155 KB

## Abstract ## Aims The aim of this study is to compare two different surface electrodes (intravaginal and intraurethral) with the concentric needle as a criterion standard and concomitant testing of the levator ani as a potential contaminator. ## Methods Thirty healthy women with a mean age of