Selectivity of spatial filters for surface EMG detection from the tibialis anterior muscle

Many spatial filters have been proposed for surface electromyographic (EMG) signal detection. Although theoretical and modeling predictions on spatial selectivity are available, there are no extensive experimental validations of these techniques based on single motor unit (MU) activity detection. The aim of this study was to compare spatial selectivity of one- and twodimensional (1-D and 2-D) spatial filters for EMG signal detection. Intramuscular and surface EMG signals were recorded from the tibialis anterior muscle of ten subjects. The simultaneous use of intramuscular wire and surface recordings (with the spike triggered averaging technique) allowed investigation of the activity of single MUs at the skin surface. The surface EMG signals were recorded with a grid of point electrodes (3*3 electrodes) and a ring electrode system at 15 locations over the muscle, with the wires detecting signals from the same intramuscular location. For most subjects, it was possible to classify, from the intramuscular recordings, the activity of the same MUs for all the contractions. The surface EMG signals were averaged with the intramuscularly detected MU action potentials as triggers. In this way, eight spatial filters-longitudinal and transversal, single and double differential (LSD, TSD, LDD, TDD), Laplacian (NDD), inverse binomial filter of the second order (IB2), inverse rectangle filter (IR), and differential ring system (C1)-could be compared on the basis of their spatial selectivity. The distance from the source (transversal with respect to the muscle fiber orientation) after which the surface detected potential did not exceed+-5% of the maximal peak-to-peak amplitude (detection distance) was statistically smaller for the 2-D systems and TDD than for the other filters. The MU action potential duration was significantly shorter with LDD and with the 2-D systems than with the other filters. The 2-D filters investigated (including C1) showed very similar performance and were, thus, considered equivalent from the point of view of spatial selectivity.