These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8941269)
1. On the selection of concentric needle electromyogram motor unit action potentials: is the rise time criterion too restrictive? Barkhaus PE; Nandedkar SD Muscle Nerve; 1996 Dec; 19(12):1554-60. PubMed ID: 8941269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Rise time or rise rate: which should be a criterion for analysing motor unit action potentials? Masakado Y; Akaboshi K; Kimura A; Chino N Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 2000 Sep; 40(6):381-3. PubMed ID: 11039123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Principal component analysis of the features of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials. Nandedkar SD; Sanders DB Muscle Nerve; 1989 Apr; 12(4):288-93. PubMed ID: 2770781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. "Facial" and standard concentric needle electrodes are not interchangeable. Barkhaus PE; Roberts MM; Nandedkar SD Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 2006 Sep; 46(5):259-61. PubMed ID: 17059096 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Simulation of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials. Nandedkar SD; Sanders DB; Stålberg EV; Andreassen S Muscle Nerve; 1988 Feb; 11(2):151-9. PubMed ID: 3343991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Properties of motor unit action potentials recorded with concentric and monopolar needle electrodes: ADEMG analysis. Howard JE; McGill KC; Dorfman LJ Muscle Nerve; 1988 Oct; 11(10):1051-5. PubMed ID: 3185599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of standard and pediatric size concentric needle EMG electrodes. Brownell AA; Bromberg MB Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 May; 118(5):1162-5. PubMed ID: 17382584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computer simulation study of the shape of motor unit action potential. Piotrkiewicz M Acta Physiol Pol; 1988; 39(1):35-45. PubMed ID: 3421135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of close proximity concentric and modified single fiber electromyographic recordings from extensor digitorum communis. Harmon RL; Rodriquez AA; Harmon PA Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1993; 33(1):59-62. PubMed ID: 8436087 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Simulation and analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern in normal muscle. Part II: Activity, upper centile amplitude, and number of small segments. Nandedkar SD; Sanders DB; Stålberg EV Muscle Nerve; 1986; 9(6):486-90. PubMed ID: 3736582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Antigravity posture for analysis of motor unit recruitment: the "45 degree test". Petajan JH Muscle Nerve; 1990 Apr; 13(4):355-9. PubMed ID: 2355948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Skill and selection bias has least influence on motor unit action potential firing rate/frequency. Chu J; Takehara I; Li TC; Schwartz I Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 2003; 43(7):387-92. PubMed ID: 14626717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of intramuscular needle position on motor unit action potential metrics. Brownell AA; Bromberg MB Muscle Nerve; 2007 Apr; 35(4):465-70. PubMed ID: 17221877 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of motor unit firing rates by standard concentric needle electromyography. Gunreben G; Schulte-Mattler W Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 1992 Mar; 32(3):103-11. PubMed ID: 1313354 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Simulation and analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern in normal muscle. Part I: Turns and amplitude measurements. Nandedkar SD; Sanders DB; Stålberg EV Muscle Nerve; 1986 Jun; 9(5):423-30. PubMed ID: 3724788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]