Silva 2009
Silva 2009
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
secondary (flexion of the arm and forearm) movements, which re- resolution; signal band pass filtered at 20–500 Hz for the EMG
cruit the participation of some muscles, such as Pectoralis Major channels; input range of ± 10 mV; input protection of ± 40 V,
(PM), Biceps Brachii (BB), Pronator Teres (PT) and Flexor Carpi adjustable amplification stage, making possible gains between
Ulnaris (FCU) muscles. Such movements and muscles were already 100 and 4960 times; galvanic isolation (1.5 kV at 60 Hz) between
evaluated in several electromyographic studies considering differ- the electronic circuit and the stage that is in contact with the vol-
ent positions of the upper limb, absence or presence of diverse unteer. The electromyographic signals were synchronously sam-
loads, and in dynamic and static conditions (Dias et al., 2003; pled (simultaneous sample and hold) at a sampling rate of
Ferreira et al., 2003; Hiengkaew et al., 2003; O’Sullivan and Gall- 2 kHz. After digitalization, the signal was stored for later process-
wey, 2002). ing by the Myosystem-Br1 software (Laboratory of Biomedical
Previous studies have demonstrated that the PM muscle is ac- Engineering, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, MG,
tive during horizontal adduction at the shoulder (Ferreira et al., Brazil).
2003; Gowan et al., 1987; Jonsson et al., 1972) and slightly active
during isometric trunk axial rotation (Amell et al., 2000), shoulder 2.2.2. Electrodes
depression (Jonsson et al., 1972), and arm flexion movements (Hie- Active differential surface electrodes (Lynx Electronics Ltda, São
ngkaew et al., 2003; Jonsson et al., 1972). The BB muscle has shown Paulo, SP, Brazil) consisting of two Ag parallel rectangular bars
a great activity during forearm flexion (Glousman et al., 1988; Go- (10 2 mm) distanced of 10 mm were used. The raw signal was
wan et al., 1987; Page et al., 2003) and supination (O’Sullivan and passed through differential amplifier, input impedance higher than
Gallwey, 2002; Van Hoecke et al., 1978a), but low activity in arm 10 GX, CMRR higher than 90 dB, and a gain of 20 times. Another
flexion, rotation and extension movements (David et al., 2000; Dias electrode (SP Médica, Científica e Comercial Ltda, São Paulo, SP,
et al., 2003; Furlani, 1976). The PT muscle appears to participate in Brazil) was also used as reference electrode.
the forearm flexion (Thepaut-Mathieu and Maton, 1985) in addi-
tion to its role in pronation (O’Sullivan and Gallwey, 2002; Van 2.2.3. Worktable for armwrestling
Hoecke et al., 1978a). A worktable was especially made for the armwrestling by using
In this context, the electromyographic analysis of the function iron (height: 118 cm) and wooden surface (56 72 cm), containing
of some muscles that effectively participate in the armwrestling two iron pines for hand support, two upholstered supports for the
movement can bring contributions to elucidate issues on the real combat elbow, and two bases for the final control of movement. In
participation of muscular groups in this sport, collaborating for a addition, one support with pulley was adapted containing a plat-
better muscular work and excellence in the athletes’ performance. form, in which the loads, a plastic pulley, and a handgrip were
In addition, EMG in armwrestling can offer a substantial support to placed (Fig. 1).
Physiotherapists and Physical Educators, since the knowledge on
the recruitment of motor units of a specific muscle constitutes 2.2.4. Goniometer
the theoretical base for the therapy of joint dysfunctions caused To establish the initial, intermediary and final positions in static
by unbalances of force or muscular activation. Thus, specific train- tests as well the forearm and arm flexion angles, a universal goni-
ing and rehabilitation programs can be planned for the recovery of ometer (CARCI, Indústria e Comércio de Aparelhos Cirúrgicos e
joint or neuromuscular lesions. Therefore, the purpose of this study Ortopédicos Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) was used as recommended
was to evaluate the simultaneous electromyographic activity of the in biomechanical procedures (Araújo and Amadio, 1996).
PM (sternocostal fibers), BB, PT and FCU muscles involved in the
simulated armwrestling sport in dynamic and static conditions. 2.2.5. Load cell
To determine the produced force at each position in static tests,
2. Methods a load cell (KRATOS – Dinamômetros, modelo MM/100, Kratos
Equipamentos Industriais Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) with 0–
2.1. Subjects 100 kgf capacity of traction or compression was used. It was inter-
connected between the load platform and the extremity of the
Ten male subjects aged 21–34 years (26.6 ± 4.5 years old), steel cable in the support with pulley (Fig. 1). The force signals
height: 165–190 cm (180 ± 7 cm), weight: 76–98 kg (88 ± 7 kg) were also processed using Myosystem-Br1 software.
were recruited from a sample of physically fit athletes in armwres-
tling sport. The inclusion criterion was based on the physical con- 2.3. Procedures
stitution of the volunteers who should possess similar lengths of
the arm and forearm to guarantee the uniformity of lever arm Subjects were asked to abstain from physical activity on the day
and consequently to minimize the individual variables. The exclu- prior to and the day of testing to avoid the effects of cumulative
sion criteria in the study were based on history of joint or neuro- muscular fatigue. Prior to the experiments, the volunteers were
muscular disorders that might influence the muscular activity. submitted to a short training in order to become used to testing
All subjects signed a written informed consent prior to testing procedures. This included a warm-up session and the stretching
and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of São Paulo of the upper limb muscles for one minute. Then the volunteers
University, SP, Brazil (Of. CEPSH. 101/03, 449/CEP). were positioned standing up next to the worktable and placed
the dominant member at position of execution of the tests.
2.2. Instrumentation The preparation of the volunteers consisted of shaving and
cleaning the skin with 70% alcohol to minimize the contact imped-
2.2.1. Electromyograph ance. The electrodes were positioned, with the subjects standing,
Electromyographic signals were recorded using a computer- on the dominant upper limb, precisely on the midline of the mus-
connected electromyograph developed in the Laboratory of Bio- cle belly between the most distal motor point and the tendon (Rai-
medical Engineering, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, noldi et al., 1999), with the detection surface (two parallel bars)
Brazil, with the following characteristics: simultaneous acquisition perpendicular to the direction of the muscle fibers (De Luca,
up to eight differential channels with input impedance of 10 GX in 1997). The reference electrode was positioned on the volunteer’s
differential mode; device with two auxiliary channels for load cells ulna styloid process. Adhesive tape was used to hold the active
and electrogoniometer; ground common to all channels; 12 bits and reference electrodes. The electrode placement was performed
e450 D.C.O. Silva et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) e448–e457
static tests was maintained for a stabilization period (2–3 s) plus for each muscle between different loads were carried out using the
the acquisition time (4 s). Student paired t test, and among the different positions by ANOVA
with the Tukey’s post-test. The correlation between RMSn values of
2.4. Data analysis each muscle and the different loads as well between electric activ-
ity produced by all muscles (total RMSn) and the force exerted in
2.4.1. RMS normalization the three analyzed positions was determined using the Pearson’s
All electromyographic data were analyzed in terms of their RMS correlation test. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically
(root mean square) values, which were calculated throughout the significant.
4 s sample time (RMS averaging window). In dynamic tests the
mean raw RMS values obtained from the three sequences for each 3. Results
load, muscle and subject were normalized (RMSn) to the findings
at 100% MVL (Dias et al., 2003; Hiengkaew et al., 2003; Rodrigues 3.1. Dynamic tests
et al., 2003; Sakurai et al., 1998; Yamaguchi et al., 1997) as follows:
Mean RMSn values obtained from the PM, BB, FCU and PT mus-
Mean raw RMS value with 40% or 80% MVL
RMSn ¼ 100 cles during dynamic tests with 40% and 80% MVL are shown in Ta-
Mean raw RMS value with 100% MVL
ble 1. Electric activity of the PT muscle was significantly greater
In static tests the mean raw RMS values obtained from the three than those of the BB (p < 0.05) and FCU (p < 0.01) muscles with
sequences for each position, muscle and subject were normalized 40% MVL while the BB muscle showed lower electric activity than
to the raw RMS value obtained from the highest load trial observed the PM and PT muscles (p < 0.05) with 80% MVL. When mean RMSn
in each position (initial, intermediary or final) for each muscle values of each muscle were compared between 40% and 80% MVL
(Gordon et al., 2004; O’Sullivan and Gallwey, 2002) as follows: (Fig. 4), a significant increase was observed with the increasing
load for all analyzed muscles, particularly for the PM and FCU
Table 1
RMS-normalized (RMSn) values of the PM, BB, FCU and PT muscles during dynamic
tests with 40% and 80% of the maximum voluntary load (MVL).
Data are represented as mean and standard deviation obtained from 10 volunteers.
Significant differences were calculated by using ANOVA and Tukey post-test
(p < 0.05).
a
RMSn (expressed in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction): PT in relation to
BB and FCU muscles.
b
RMSn (expressed in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction): BB in relation to
PM and PT muscles.
4. Discussion
In dynamic tests with 40% MVL, the highest electric activity ob-
served for the PT muscle during the simulated armwrestling may
be related to the forearm pronation and flexion as well the elbow
joint stabilization required for this movement. Such functions were
also described in previous reports that showed the participation of
the PT muscle in the forearm flexion and pronation (Testut and
Latarjet, 1979; Thepaut-Mathieu and Maton, 1985; Willians et al.,
1995). On the other hand, the low electric activity observed for
the FCU muscle may indicate a mechanical advantage of this mus-
cle in relation to the PT muscle in the movement analyzed. Alterna-
tively, there may be other explanations to this reduction in muscle
activity, such as load transfer between muscles, and not necessarily
a change in mechanical advantage. Thus, the PT muscle seems to be
involved in more than one activity, such as pulling the forearm to-
wards to the worktable surface, the forearm pronation, and the el-
bow joint stabilization, while the FCU muscle concentrates its
activity in pulling the forearm and wrist only. Accordingly, in dy-
75 *
RMSn (% MMC)
50
Fig. 3. Volunteer position during static tests. (A) Initial position at 90°; (B)
Intermediary position at 45°; (C) Final position at 15°. In the intermediary and final
positions, the cable (1) was inserted. 25
Table 2
RMS-normalized (RMSn) values and contribution level of the PM, BB, FCU and PT muscles during static tests in the initial, intermediary and final positions.
Data are represented as mean and standard deviation obtained from 10 volunteers. Significant differences were calculated by using ANOVA and Tukey post-test for each
analyzed parameter (p < 0.05).
a
RMSn (expressed in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction): PM in relation to BB and PT muscles.
b
RMSn (expressed in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction): BB in relation to PM and FCU muscles.
c
RMSn (expressed in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction): BB in relation to PM, FCU and PT muscles.
d
Contribution level: PM in relation to BB and PT muscles.
e
Contribution level: FCU in relation to BB muscle.
f
Contribution level: PM in relation to BB and PT muscles.
g
Contribution level: FCU in relation to BB muscle.
h
Contribution level: BB in relation to PM FCU and PT muscles.
namic conditions, the PT muscle may be considered a bifunctional to maintain the required angle of forearm flexion (40°). However,
muscle and seems to act as a whole (Van Hoecke et al., 1978b). other muscles not analyzed, such as brachioradialis and brachialis
The lower electric activity of the BB muscle in relation to the PT might be also contributing for stabilization of the joints. Although a
muscle with 40% MVL can be explained by the function of the BB part of the electric activity exhibited by the FCU and PT muscles
muscle in stabilizing the elbow and shoulder joints, in addition can be attributed to the elbow stabilization in synergism with
the BB muscle, this function is more ascribed to BB. Previous stud-
ies have also demonstrated the action of the BB muscle on the
Initial Intermediary Final shoulder joint, but less effective when compared to the elbow joint
(Testut and Latarjet, 1979; Willians et al., 1995). In contrast, other
*** *
100 ** reports have shown that the BB muscle does not appear to have an
* ***
active role in shoulder stabilization and that any shoulder specific
function for the BB muscle would be passive (Yamaguchi et al.,
1997).
75 As no significant change of the electric activity of the PM muscle
RMSn (%MMC)
with 40% MVL was observed in relation to the other muscles, its
function may be interpreted as required to the arm medial rota-
50 tion, but also to the arm flexion and shoulder joint stabilization,
in synergism with the rotator cuff and other muscles. These find-
ings are concordant with other studies showing that the PM mus-
cle acts in movements of arm medial rotation and adduction
25
(Testut and Latarjet, 1979; Willians et al., 1995) as well in shoulder
stabilization and arm flexion (Ferreira et al., 2003; Hiengkaew
et al., 2003; Jonsson et al., 1972).
0 With the load increase for 80% MVL, all muscles showed a sig-
PM BB FCU PT
nificant increase in mean RMSn values, confirming that the muscu-
Muscles lar activity is a function of the load, as previously reported (Boaro
PM BB FCU PT
40
100
Contribution level (%)
30
*** 80
**
Fn (% MS)
20 60
40
10
20
0
Initial Intermediary Final
0
Positions Initial Intermediary Final
Fig. 5. Comparison among the (A) mean RMS-normalized values (RMSn, expressed Positions
in% MMC – maximum muscular contraction) and (B) mean contribution level (%) of
the PM, BB, FCU and PT muscles in 10 volunteers submitted to static tests at initial, Fig. 6. Comparison among the Force-normalized values (Fn, expressed in% MS –
intermediary and final positions. The bars represent the mean and the standard maximum force) in 10 volunteers submitted to static test at initial, intermediary
deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 as determined by Tukey’s test. and final positions. The bars represent the mean and the standard deviation.
e454 D.C.O. Silva et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) e448–e457
and Vitti, 1993; Furlani, 1976; Jonsson et al., 1972; Page et al., the elbow than to maintain it in flexion at the same angle. On the
2003; Rodrigues et al., 2003; Van Hoecke et al., 1978b). This incre- other hand, the decreased electric activity of the PT muscle sug-
ment was particularly evident for the PM and FCU muscles, indi- gests that its main function in this position is related to forearm
cating that these muscles are responsible for sustaining the load, flexion and elbow stabilization in addition to the forearm prona-
while the BB and PT muscles perform a secondary function, even tion. Such function of stabilization for the muscles BB and PT was
with a high EMG activity. These findings differ from other reports also verified in several phases of the movement in tennis game
suggesting that the PM sternocostal presents an irrelevant action (Morris et al., 1989).
in the arm medial rotation movement (Sousa et al., 1969; Testut In the final position, RMSn values observed for all muscles were
and Latarjet, 1979; Willians et al., 1995). Therefore, the BB muscle similar to those in the intermediary position, indicating that from
continues to act as a joint stabilizer, although with higher activity, the middle to the end of armwrestling movement, the PM muscle
because the difficulty of stabilizing the joint is larger with higher develops its major function that is the arm medial rotation, while
loads, and the PT muscle continues to play two important roles, the BB and PT muscles have secondary function in this phase of
namely, to pull and to execute the forearm pronation in addition the movement. These findings were similar to those verified by Go-
to stabilize the joint. These findings agree with those obtained by wan et al. (1987) that found strong activity for the PM muscle in
Dias et al. (2003) that reported that the BB muscle acts as humerus the final phase of the pitch movements in baseball game.
stabilizer in the glenoid cavity in movements of arm flexion with As no significant difference was observed for the FCU muscle
forearm pronation. activity among the three positions, it can be hypothesized that this
The simultaneous analysis of dynamic tests with 40% and 80% muscle performs a primary action in the movement, that is, to pull
MVL evidenced that the elevation of load produced increased the forearm and the wrist towards the worktable surface. In addi-
RMSn values of all muscles analyzed, although this increment tion, since the FCU muscle crosses both elbow and carpus joints, its
was not directly proportional to the increment of load. Other stud- activity will always be shared between both joints, even in static
ies also found a significant influence of load on EMG activity, even conditions, although there is a predominance of one joint over
though analyzing different muscle groups as the knee joint flexor the other, confirming previous reports (Silva et al., 2002), but
and extensor muscles (McCaw and Melrose, 1999; Rao et al., diverging from others that stated its action in the carpus flexion
2009). However, changes in EMG activity were ‘‘more than propor- only (Testut and Latarjet, 1979; Willians et al., 1995).
tional” as load increased (Rao et al., 2009), opposite to Kingma et al. The behavior presented by the four studied muscles in the three
(2004) who reported a ‘‘less than proportional” evolution of the positions suggests that when the BB and PT muscles assume posi-
EMG activities relative to the load. Van Hoecke et al. (1978b) also tions of mechanical advantage, PM and FCU muscles enter in disad-
showed a linear relationship between electric activity and mechan- vantage during the displacement of the forearm towards the
ical work during pronation and supination movements and it was worktable surface. Moreover, the electric activity seems to be sig-
dependent on the elbow position. These contrasting data can be nificantly affected by the position of the superior extremity, espe-
possibly explained by the use of different methodological and cially from the initial to the end position, as previously confirmed
instrumental conditions, such as the EMG record system and load by other reports (Amell et al., 2000; O’Sullivan and Gallwey, 2002).
levels. Thus, our results reflect that each muscle seems to be its When analyzing the contribution levels of each muscle in static
own action and stability according to the load, reinforcing previous tests in the three positions, the BB and PT muscles are more active
reports that different loads may have different roles during exer- when the movement is unstable (initial position), whereas the PM
cises (Rao et al., 2009). and FCU muscles are more functional when a larger force is re-
quired (intermediary and final positions). The accentuated de-
4.2. Static tests crease in the level of participation of the BB muscle between the
initial and intermediary positions suggests that, in this latter, the
Regarding the RMSn values obtained during isometric contrac- joint stability is ascribed to the flexion angle, but not to the mus-
tion in the initial position of the simulated armwrestling, the larg- cular activity. Thus, it is possible that the largest contribution level
est electric activity verified for the BB and PT muscles suggests that verified by the PT muscle in the initial position is due to the activity
in the beginning of the armwrestling it is more important to main- of pulling the forearm associated with the pronation and, as this
tain the forearm flexion angle in relation to the arm (function of latter function is small in the final position, the PT muscle pro-
the BB muscle) and to try ‘‘to break” the adversary’s wrist, that duced low activity.
is, to perform supination of adversary’s forearm (function of the
PT muscle). Therefore, the BB and PT muscles, in the initial posi- 4.3. Force
tion, act as joint stabilizers rather than agonists of the movement.
On the order hand, the PM muscle, that presented the smallest As no significant difference was observed for Fn values in static
activity in this position, seems to act only in the shoulder joint sta- tests in the three positions, it can be suggested that the muscle
bilization. These findings agree with previous reports in baseball force is not dependent on the number of active motor units only,
game (Glousman et al., 1988; Gowan et al., 1987), showing higher but the firing frequency from a same motor unit. Although there
activity of the BB muscle as compared to the PM muscle in pitch is some controversy about the relationship between EMG and
initial movements and concluding that the BB muscle acts primar- force, it is believed that the knowledge of the muscular action, evi-
ily in order to place the shoulder and elbow at position for begin- denced by EMG, in some therapeutic and training exercises, can of-
ning the movement. In adduction isometric movements, high fer subsidies to health professionals as well to athletes for
activity of the BB muscle and minimum of the PM muscle were also investigating and improving the muscle functional capacity, and
verified (Amell et al., 2000; Coury et al., 1998). In addition, high consequently, promoting an increase of the force (Hanten and
activity of the PT muscle was also found in pronation torques Schulthies, 1990).
(O’Sullivan and Gallwey, 2002; Van Hoecke et al., 1978a). Altogether, it can be concluded that in dynamic tests, the PT
In the intermediary position, the increase of RMSn values veri- muscle performs its functions of forearm pronation and flexion
fied for the PM muscle, although not significant, reinforces its ac- as well as elbow stabilization, which are required in the simulated
tion to promote the humerus medial rotation. In contrast, the armwrestling. In addition, the shoulder joint is stabilized by the
significantly decreased electric activity observed for the BB muscle PM muscle, the elbow joint is stabilized by the BB and FCU mus-
may indicate that in this position it is more important to stabilize cles, and the maintenance of the forearm flexion angle is per-
D.C.O. Silva et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) e448–e457 e455
formed by the latter muscles. In static tests, the PM and FCU mus- Gordon KD, Pardo RD, Johnson JA, King GJW, Miller TA. Electromyographic activity
and strength during maximum isometric pronation and supination efforts in
cles participate as agonists in the simulated armwrestling, focusing
healthy adults. J Orthop Res 2004;22:208–13.
their activities in the arm medial rotation and to pull the forearm Gowan LD, Jobe FW, Tibone JE, Perry J, Moynes DR. A comparative
and the wrist towards the worktable surface, whereas the BB and electromyographic analysis of the shoulder during pitching. Professional
PT muscles seem to perform secondary functions as joint stabiliza- versus amateur pitchers. Am J Sports Med 1987;15:586–90.
Hanten WP, Schulthies SS. Exercise effect on electromyographic activity of the
tion, maintenance of the forearm flexion angle and forearm prona- vastus medialis oblique and vastus lateralis muscles. Phys Ther 1990;70:
tion. Also, the electric activity showed to be dependent on the load 561–5.
in dynamic tests, although with no linear relationship between Hermes HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Raul G. Development of recommendations
for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
them, and on the position of the upper limb in static tests, but 2000;10:361–74.
not on the force produced during the movement. Hiengkaew V, Wichaiwong K, Chaiyakul S, Deesin A. Concerning the pectoralis
The data collected in this study improve the knowledge of the major in active reaching exercise. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol
2003;43:157–63.
muscle activity used during armwrestling. Thus, a specific training Jonsson B, Olofsson BM, Steffner LC. Function of the teres major, latissimus dorsi
or rehabilitation program can be developed and the armwrestling and pectolaris major muscles: a preliminary study. Acta Morphologica
athletes can increase their force and muscle capacity for obtaining Neerlando Scandinavica 1972;9:275–80.
Kingma I, Aalbersberg S, van Dieen JH. Are hamstrings activated to counteract shear
the maximum performance, but preserving their physical integrity. forces during isometric knee extension efforts in healthy subjects? J
Further work examining a true armwrestling simulation with two Electromyogr Kinesiol 2004;14:307–15.
athletes at same time is required to confirm these findings and to Koukoubis TD, Cooper LW, Glisson RR, Seaber AV, Feagin Jr JA. An
electromyographic study of arm muscles during climbing. Knee Surg, Sports
provide a better understanding about this movement.
Traumatol, Arthroscopy 1995;3:121–4.
McCaw ST, Melrose DR. Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity
Acknowledgements during the parallel squat. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1999;31:428–36.
Morris M, Jobe FW, Perry J, Pink M, Healy BS. Electromyography analysis of elbow
The authors thank FAPESP – Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do function in tennis players. Am J Sports Med 1989;17:241–7.
O’Sullivan LW, Gallwey TJ. Upper-limb surface electromyography at maximum
Estado de São Paulo – Brazil (Process No. 03/03042-4) for support- supination and pronation torques: the effect of elbow and forearm angle. J
ing this study. Electromyogr Kinesiol 2002;12:275–85.
Page C, Backus SI, Lenhoff MW. Electromyographic activity in stiff and normal
References elbows during elbow flexion and extension. J Hand Ther 2003;16:5–11.
Rainoldi A, Galardi G, Maderna L, Comi G, Lo Conte L, Merletti R. Repeatability of
surface EMG variables during voluntary isometric contractions of the biceps
Amell TK, Kumar S, Narayan Y, Coury HCG. Effect of trunk rotation and arm position
brachii muscle. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1999;9:105–19.
on gross upper extremity adduction strength and muscular activity. Ergonomics
Rao G, Amarantini D, Berton E. Influence of additional load on the moments of the
2000;43:512–27.
agonist and antagonist muscle groups at the knee joint during closed chain
Araújo RC, Amadio AC. Análise biomecânica da ativação das porções superficiais do
exercise. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009;19(3):459–66.
músculo quadríceps femoral durante contrações excêntrica e concêntrica.
Rodrigues JA, Büll ML, Dias GAR, Gonçalves M, Guazzelli JF. Electromyographic
Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia 1996;1:13–20.
analysis of the pectoralis major and deltoideus anterior muscles in horizontal
Basmajian JV, De Luca CJ. Upper Limb. In: Muscles alive: their function revealed by
‘‘flyer” exercises with loads. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2003;43:
electromyography. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1985. p. 265–89.
413–9.
Chapter 12.
Rouard AH, Billat RP. Influences of sex and level of performance on freestyle stroke:
Blackwell J, Knudson D. Effect of type 3 (oversize) tennis ball on serve performance
an electromyography and kinematic study. Int J Sports Med 1990;11:
and upper extremity muscle activity. Sports Biomech 2002;1:187–92.
150–5.
Boaro SN, Vitti M. Estudo eletromiográfico do músculo bíceps braquial. Revista
Sakurai G, Ozaki J, Tomita Y, Nishimoto K, Tamai S. Electromyographic analysis of
Brasileira de Ciências Morfológicas 1993;10:84–7.
shoulder joint function of the biceps brachii muscle during isometric
Cardinale M, Lim J. Electromyographic activity of vastus lateralis muscle during
contraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;1:123–31.
whole-body vibrations of different frequencies. J Strength Conditioning Res
Silva Z, Soave C, Cunha GC, Bérzin F, Barros RAC, Silva DCO. Electromyographic
2003;17:621–4.
study of the flexor and extensor carpi ulnaris muscles in flexion movements of
Confederação Brasileira de Luta de Braço, História da Luta de Braço. Available from:
the forearm. Brazilian J Morphol Sci 2002;19:35–9.
<http://www.cblb.com.br/historia.htm>; 2004 [accessed 25.2.04].
Solomonow M, Baratta R, Bernardi M, Zhou B, Lu Y, Zhu M, Acierno S. Surface and
Coury HG, Kumar S, Narayan Y. An electromyographic study of upper limb
wire EMG crosstalk in neighbouring muscles. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
adduction force with varying shoulder and elbow postures. J Electromyogr
1994;4:131–42.
Kinesiol 1998;8:157–68.
Sousa OM, Bérzin F, Berardi AC. Electromyographic study of the pectoralis major
David G, Magarey ME, Jones MA, Dvir Z, Türker KS, Sharpe M. EMG and strength
and latissimus dorsi muscles during medial rotation of the arm.
correlates of selected shoulder muscles during rotations of the glenohumeral
Electromyography 1969;9:407–16.
joint. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2000;15:95–102.
St Clair Gibson A, Schabort EJ, Noakes TD. Reduced neuromuscular activity and force
De Luca CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech
generation during prolonged cycling. Am J Physiol, Reg Integrat Comp Physiol
1997;13:135–63.
2001;281:R187–96.
Dias GAR, Guazzelli-Filho J, Rodrigues JA, Gonçalves M, Büll ML. Electromyographic
Testut L, Latarjet A. Miologia: músculos del miembro superior. In: Tratado de
analysis of the arm muscles in ‘‘front support” exercises. Electromyogr Clin
Anatomía Humana. Barcelona, Libro III: Salvat; 1979. p. 895–908. pp. 1012–
Neurophysiol 2003;43:465–70.
1040.
Eloranta V. Influence of sports background on leg muscle coordination in vertical
Thepaut-Mathieu C, Maton B. The flexor function of the m. pronator teres in man: a
jumps. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2003;43:141–56.
quantitative electromyographic study. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
Ferreira MI, Büll ML, Vitti M. Participation of the deltoid (anterior portion) and
1985;54:116–21.
pectoralis major (clavicular portion) muscles in different modalities of supine
Van Hoecke J, Pérot C, Goubel F. Contribution of the biceps brachii and pronator
and frontal elevation exercises with different grips. Electromyogr Clin
teres to the efforts of pronation or supination. I. Static work. Eur J Appl Physiol
Neurophysiol 2003;43:131–40.
Occup Physiol 1978a;38:83–91.
Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Fundamentos do Treinamento de Força Muscular. 2nd
Van Hoecke J, Pérot C, Goubel F. Contribution of the biceps brachii and pronator
ed. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1999.
teres to the efforts of pronation or supination. II. Dynamic work. Eur J Appl
Furlani J. Electromyographic study of the m. biceps brachii in movements at the
Physiol Occup Physiol 1978b;38:93–100.
glenoumeral joint. Acta Anat (Basel) 1976;96:270–84.
Willians PL, Warwick R, Dyson M, Bannister LH. Miologia: fáscias e músculos do
Furlani J, Cerqueira EP, Scoarçoni M. Estudo eletromiográfico dos músculos peitoral
membro superior. In: Gray Anatomia. 37th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara
maior, serrátil anterior e grande dorsal em movimentos de remo a seco. Revista
Koogan; 1995. p. 567–91. Capítulo 5.
Brasileira de Ciências Morfológicas 1987;4:40–4.
Yamaguchi K, Riew DK, Galatz LM, Syme JA, Neviaser RJ. Biceps activity during
Glousman R, Jobe F, Tibone J, Moynes D, Antonelli D, Perry J. Dynamic
shoulder motion: an electromyographic analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res
electromyographic analysis of the throwing shoulder with glenohumeral
1997;1:122–9.
instability. J Bone Joint Surg 1988;70:220–6.
e456 D.C.O. Silva et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) e448–e457
Daniela C.O. Silva graduated at the Federal Univer- Karina V. Marques graduated at the Federal Uni-
sity of Uberlandia-UFU in 2002 (Physical Education) versity of Uberlandia (Brazil) in 2002 (Physical Edu-
and receive her master’s degree from Sao Paulo cation) and masters degree in Anatomy of the
University-USP in 2004 (Morphological Sciences). Domestic and Silvestre Animals, Sao Paulo University
Nowadays she is a student of doctoral degree at State (Brazil) in 2005. Nowadays, she is assistant professor
University of Campinas (Anatomy and Electromyog- with exclusive dedication at Federal University of
raphy Laboratory, FOP-UNICAMP). He has experience Tocantins (UFT) and teaches Human Anatomy and
in Kinesiologic Electromyography, Human and Com- Neuroanatomy at Medicine Course. She has experi-
pared Anatomy, and Neuroanatomy. Presently his ence in Electromyography, Human Anatomy, Com-
work focuses on fatigue muscle and oral supple- pared Anatomy and Neuroanatomy.
mentation of ergogenic substances.
Dr. Zenon Silva graduated at the State University of Dr. Alcimar B. Soares graduated at the Federal Uni-
Sao Paulo (Biological Sciences - medical modality) versity of Uberlandia (Brazil) in 1987 (Electrical
and he received his PhD title in Anatomy by the Sao Engineering) where he also finished his MSc in Arti-
Paulo University. He was a titular professor of Federal ficial Intelligence (1990). In 1997 he received his PhD
University of Uberlandia (Anatomy Department). title (Biomedical Engineering) by the University of
Nowadays, he is a professor of Federal University of Edinbugh (UK). Since 1990 he has been a lecturer at
Goias and he has experience in Human Anatomy, the Department of Electrical Engineering of the Fed-
Neuroanatomy, Compared Anatomy and Physiology, eral University of Uberlandia (Brazil). Nowadays, he
and Kinesiologic Electromyography. heads the Biomedical Engineering and Automatics
Lab at that institution and supervises a number of
graduate and postgraduate students in the areas of
biomechanics, biomedical instrumentation and bio-
medical signal processing.
Dr. Gilmar C. Sousa graduated in Physical Education Dr. Esem P. Cerqueira earned a PhD in Anatomy
at Federal University of Uberlandia (UFU) and doc- from the University of São Paulo, São Paulo - BRAZIL.
toral degree in Sciences at State University of Cam- He is Associate Professor, and teaches gross anatomy
pinas (UNICAMP). He is an Associated Professor at to Medical, Physical Therapy and Occupational
UFU, member of Brazilian Society of Anatomy and Therapy Schools at the University of São Paulo. His
Brazilian Society of Electromyography and Kinesiol- major research interest is on skeletal muscles func-
ogy, chairman of Kinesiologic Electromyography tions and kinesiological study by Electromyography.
Research Laboratory (UFU) and chairman of perma- Professor Cerqueira received a postdoctoral training
nent commission of college entrance exam (UFU). He in Motor Units Electromyography at the University of
is member of the Editorial Board of Bioscience Jour- Montreal, Montreal, Quebec – Canada.
nal. He has worked with human and compared
Anatomy, Kinesiologic Electromyography.
Luiz F.G. Silva is master in biochemistry at Federal Dr. Edson A. Liberti is biologist specialized in Human
University of Uberlandia (2006), graduated in Physi- Anatomy (CRBio-I) and Professor of Anatomy of
cal Education by Federal University of Uberlandia University of São Paulo (USP) since 1981. PhD in
(UFU-2002). Nowadays he is a professor (Assistant I) Human Anatomy (USP-1984) and Associated Profes-
at University of state of Pará (UEPA), Santarem sor of Human Anatomy (USP-1996). Full Professor of
campus - PA. He has experience in areas like Human Human Anatomy (USP-2003) and Chairman of the
Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry of Exercise, Department of Anatomy (USP-2002-2006).
Sport and Physical Training, Kinesiology and Physical
Evaluation, acting mainly on the following themes:
electromyography, endurance training, exercise and
physical training, double product, osmotic fragility
and flexibility.
D.C.O. Silva et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) e448–e457 e457