**4. Results**

### **4.1. Influence of the treatments (First study)**

The figure 10 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in submaximal intensity. We can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the procedure of analyses are added to treatment.

Influence of Different Strategies of Treatment Muscle Contraction

and Relaxation Phases on EMG Signal Processing and Analysis During Cyclic Exercise 109

The figure 12 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in supramaximal intensity. Once again we can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although, like the other two intensities, it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the

**Figure 12.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to supramaximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S

This last one is the one that most called our attention, once that an exercise in this intensity should cause a lot of noises, coming from the exercise (Cross-talk, muscular and skin movement, changes in the conductor tissues) and from the devices (electrode, wire movement, quickly distance change from the devices that capture and record the signal).

The Bland-Altman test shows good concordance between different methods of treatment in the neuromuscular activity to obtain the RMS in all muscles. In submaximal, maximal or supramaximal intensity differences among data weren`t found using as reference always the

In trying to find possible influences of the EMG treatments procedures for the RMS value, the results allow us through the comparison and concordance tested to affirm a similar achievement in mVolts, for the muscles in any intensity. Those results shall bring us some perspective about the protocol imposed, where the principal recommendations are the filtering, rectification and smoothing [11]. The final results founded for the treatment of the muscular activity has a identification with a specific baseline achievement always close to zero [15]. Thus, the EMG is a very detailed and disturbed situation because of the sequence of noises, often caused by different reasons of difficulty control. It is worth to say the crosstalk influence, defined by the capitation of electric signal from synergic muscles. This interference normally doesn't surpass 15% of the total signal, but make it very clear the importance of a good location for the electrode. Also, a lot of different reasons can bring those noises, like the pressure, the environment and even the evaluator experience [16,18- 20]. Thus, it's clear the necessities of procedures that can eliminate those noises, and give us

procedure of analyses are added to treatment.

= Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

a signal that really represents the muscular activity.

FSR method.

**Figure 10.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to submaximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S = Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

The figure 11 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in maximal intensity. We can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although, like the submaximal intensity, it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the procedure of analyses are added to treatment.

**Figure 11.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to maximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S = Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

The figure 12 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in supramaximal intensity. Once again we can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although, like the other two intensities, it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the procedure of analyses are added to treatment.

Computational Intelligence in Electromyography Analysis – 108 A Perspective on Current Applications and Future Challenges

**4.1. Influence of the treatments (First study)** 

Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

are added to treatment.

The figure 10 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in submaximal intensity. We can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the procedure of analyses are added to

**Figure 10.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to submaximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S =

The figure 11 shows a comparative analyses of the RMS mean values from quadriceps integrated, obtained in maximal intensity. We can see that no differences were found among different kinds of EMG treatment (p>0.05), although, like the submaximal intensity, it shows a tendency to decrease the values encountered in the measure that the procedure of analyses

**Figure 11.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to maximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S =

**4. Results** 

treatment.

**Figure 12.** RMS values (mean and standard deviation) from quadriceps integrated muscles ([VL + VM+ RF] ÷ 3) in the different kinds of treatments to supramaximal intensity exercise. R = Raw, F = Filtered, S = Smoothing. No differences were found (p>0.05).

This last one is the one that most called our attention, once that an exercise in this intensity should cause a lot of noises, coming from the exercise (Cross-talk, muscular and skin movement, changes in the conductor tissues) and from the devices (electrode, wire movement, quickly distance change from the devices that capture and record the signal).

The Bland-Altman test shows good concordance between different methods of treatment in the neuromuscular activity to obtain the RMS in all muscles. In submaximal, maximal or supramaximal intensity differences among data weren`t found using as reference always the FSR method.

In trying to find possible influences of the EMG treatments procedures for the RMS value, the results allow us through the comparison and concordance tested to affirm a similar achievement in mVolts, for the muscles in any intensity. Those results shall bring us some perspective about the protocol imposed, where the principal recommendations are the filtering, rectification and smoothing [11]. The final results founded for the treatment of the muscular activity has a identification with a specific baseline achievement always close to zero [15]. Thus, the EMG is a very detailed and disturbed situation because of the sequence of noises, often caused by different reasons of difficulty control. It is worth to say the crosstalk influence, defined by the capitation of electric signal from synergic muscles. This interference normally doesn't surpass 15% of the total signal, but make it very clear the importance of a good location for the electrode. Also, a lot of different reasons can bring those noises, like the pressure, the environment and even the evaluator experience [16,18- 20]. Thus, it's clear the necessities of procedures that can eliminate those noises, and give us a signal that really represents the muscular activity.


Influence of Different Strategies of Treatment Muscle Contraction

and Relaxation Phases on EMG Signal Processing and Analysis During Cyclic Exercise 111

**4.2. Influence of the burst and silence in treatment of EMG signal (Second** 

Test, no differences were found between methods (p>0.05).

The figure 13 present us the RMS comparison between different kinds of analyze (all signal phase and contraction phase) respectively, among muscles: RF, VM and VL in the Wingate

**Figure 13.** Comparison of root mean square (RMS) between three different muscles from quadriceps femoris (RF = rectus femoris, VM = vastus lateralis, VL = vastus lateralis) in a Wingate Test (p>0.05).

**Figure 14.** Comparison of Median Frequency (MF) between three different muscles from quadriceps femoris (RF = rectus femoris, VM = vastus lateralis, VL = vastus lateralis) in a Wingate Test (p>0.05).

**Study)** 

RF: Rectu Femoris; VM: Vastus Medialis; VL: Vastus Lateralis; FRS: Filtered, Rectified, Smooth; R: Raw; F: Filtered; FS: Filtered, Smooth.

**Table 3.** Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Bias Level of treatment (BIAS) and Lower Dispersion (LD) Upper Dispersion (UD) from BIAS in submaximal, maximal and supramaximal exercise.
