INT101539

From wiki-pain
Jump to: navigation, search
Context Info
Confidence 0.48
First Reported 2002
Last Reported 2010
Negated 0
Speculated 1
Reported most in Body
Documents 23
Total Number 24
Disease Relevance 0.99
Pain Relevance 0.33

This is a graph with borders and nodes. Maybe there is an Imagemap used so the nodes may be linking to some Pages.

methyltransferase activity (EMG1) nucleolus (EMG1) RNA binding (EMG1)
rRNA binding (EMG1) nucleus (EMG1) cytoplasm (EMG1)
Anatomy Link Frequency
head 5
muscles 3
hip 2
arm 1
muscle fibers 1
EMG1 (Homo sapiens)
Pain Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Biofeedback 18 89.00 High High
Action potential 530 73.92 Quite High
Pain threshold 1 58.52 Quite High
depression 5 55.40 Quite High
Spinal cord 29 5.96 Low Low
Pain 40 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Patellofemoral syndrome 21 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
backache 9 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
addiction 9 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
agonist 6 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Disease Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Nociception 3 99.56 Very High Very High Very High
Movement Disorders 9 96.36 Very High Very High Very High
Fatigue 107 89.72 High High
Peripheral Arterial Disease 12 72.16 Quite High
Knee Injuries 3 62.64 Quite High
Whiplash Injuries 60 62.48 Quite High
Pain 41 58.52 Quite High
Depression 5 55.40 Quite High
Neuromuscular Disease 27 30.96 Quite Low
Injury 33 10.80 Low Low

Sentences Mentioned In

Key: Protein Mutation Event Anatomy Negation Speculation Pain term Disease term
The applied acceleration, and the muscles examined had significant main effects on the peak EMG activity (p < 0.05) as shown in Table 4.
Spec (examined) Regulation (effects) of EMG in muscles
1) Confidence 0.48 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The purpose of the regression analysis was to see if using the acceleration of the sled – one could predict the head acceleration and EMG response.
Regulation (response) of EMG in head
2) Confidence 0.21 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The sternocleidomastoids muscles also tended to show an asymmetric EMG response, with the left sternocleidomastoid (the one responsible for head rotation to the right) generating a higher percentage (26%) of its MVC EMG than the left sternocleidomastoid (4%) (p < 0.05).
Regulation (response) of EMG in head
3) Confidence 0.21 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Abstract Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0.12 Pain Relevance 0
Though they generated less EMG activity, the sternocleidomastoids muscles also tended to show an asymmetric EMG response, with the left sternocleidomastoid (the one responsible for head rotation to the right) generating a higher percentage (26%) of its maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram than the right sternocleidomastoid (4%) (p < 0.05).
Regulation (response) of EMG in head
4) Confidence 0.21 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The sternocleidomastoid muscles in this case still showed an asymmetric EMG response, with the right sternocleidomastoid (the one responsible for head rotation to the left) generating a higher percentage (22%) of its maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram than the left sternocleidomastoid (4%) (p < 0.05).
Regulation (response) of EMG in head
5) Confidence 0.21 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Thus, head rotation produces an asymmetric EMG response.
Regulation (response) of EMG in head
6) Confidence 0.21 Published 2005 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1156933 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The normalization of the VMO, VLL and VLO EMG signals for the three exercises (knee extension at 90° of flexion, MVIC hip abduction at 0° of abduction, MVIC hip abduction at 30° of abduction) were obtained dividing the highest EMG value of the MVIC trials by the EMG value of a MVIC knee extension at 50° of flexion in a seated position and multiplied by 100 [16].
Regulation (value) of EMG in hip
7) Confidence 0.16 Published 2006 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1562433 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The primary purpose of this article was to investigate whether VMO, VLL and VLO EMG activity can be influenced by hip abduction.
Regulation (influenced) of EMG in hip
8) Confidence 0.16 Published 2006 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC1562433 Disease Relevance 0.06 Pain Relevance 0
The effect of hip abduction on the EMG activity of vastus medialis obliquus, vastus lateralis longus and vastus lateralis obliquus in healthy subjects

Study design

Regulation (effect) of EMG in vastus lateralis
9) Confidence 0.16 Published 2006 Journal J Neuroengineering Rehabil Section Title Doc Link PMC1562433 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
EMG signal is affected by the firing rate of the motor units, which, in most conditions, fire in the frequency region of 0 to 20 Hz.
Regulation (affected) of EMG
10) Confidence 0.13 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Electrical noise, which will affect EMG signals, can be categorized into the following types:


                       Inherent noise in electronics equipment: All electronics equipment generate noise. 
Regulation (affect) of EMG
11) Confidence 0.13 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0.08 Pain Relevance 0.04
Factors affecting EMG signal falls into three basic categories:


                       Causative Factors: This is the direct affect on signals. 
Regulation (affecting) of EMG
12) Confidence 0.13 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Factors like area of the detection surface, shape of electrode, distance between electrode detection surface, location of electrode with respect to the motor points in the muscle, location of the muscle electrode on the muscle surface with respect to the lateral edge of the muscle, orientation of the detection surfaces with respect to the muscle fibers mainly have an effect on EMG signal.
Regulation (effect) of EMG in muscle fibers
13) Confidence 0.13 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.03
The factors that mainly affect the EMG signal can also be classified.
Regulation (affect) of EMG
14) Confidence 0.13 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The effect of this virtual movement on the behaviour (eventual movement of the real arm) or physiological measures (EMG) of the participant allows a wider objective evaluation of the illusion.
Regulation (effect) of EMG in arm
15) Confidence 0.07 Published 2008 Journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Section Body Doc Link PMC2572198 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Non-nociceptive upper limb afferents modulate masseter muscle EMG activity in man.
Regulation (modulate) of EMG in muscle associated with nociception
16) Confidence 0.07 Published 2002 Journal Exp Brain Res Section Title Doc Link 11889506 Disease Relevance 0.30 Pain Relevance 0.09
A program written in the Workbench environment (DataWave Technologies, USA) was used to deliver trigger pulses in order to synchronize the occurrence of each 2 s of mechanical (sinusoidal or noise) bursts and the start of the torque, EMG and accelerometer data acquisition (sampled at 5 KHz).
Regulation (synchronize) of EMG
17) Confidence 0.06 Published 2010 Journal J Neuroeng Rehabil Section Body Doc Link PMC2904788 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Electrical noise and factors affecting EMG signal


Regulation (affecting) of EMG
18) Confidence 0.06 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0.10 Pain Relevance 0.04
Hence, the EMG signal is a complicated signal, which is controlled by the nervous system and is dependent on the anatomical and physiological properties of muscles.
Regulation (controlled) of EMG in nervous system
19) Confidence 0.06 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The maximal EMG response was then divided by an estimate of the average single motor unit response.
Regulation (response) of EMG
20) Confidence 0.06 Published 2006 Journal Biol Proced Online Section Body Doc Link PMC1455479 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.13

General Comments

This test has worked.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox