Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jelekin

Review

How should we normalize electromyograms obtained from healthy

participants? What we have learned from over 25 years of research
Adrian Burden
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, Crewe Green Road, Crewe, Cheshire CW1 5DU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electromyograms (EMGs) need to be normalized if comparisons are sought between trials when elec-
Received 2 December 2009 trodes are reapplied, as well as between different muscles and individuals. The methods used to normal-
Received in revised form 3 July 2010 ize EMGs recorded from healthy individuals have been appraised for more than a quarter of a century.
Accepted 5 July 2010
Eight methods were identified and reviewed based on criteria relating to their ability to facilitate the
comparison of EMGs. Such criteria included the magnitude and pattern of the normalized EMG, reliabil-
ity, and inter-individual variability. If the aim is to reduce inter-individual variability, then the peak or
Keywords:
Electromyography
mean EMG from the task under investigation should be used as the normalization reference value. How-
Comparison ever, the ability of such normalization methods to facilitate comparisons of EMGs is questionable. EMGs
Inter-individual variability from MVCs can be as reliable as those from submaximal contractions, and do not appear to be affected by
Reliability contraction mode or joint kinematics, particularly for the elbow flexors. Thus, the EMG from an isometric
Isometric MVC MVC is endorsed as a normalization reference value. Alternatively the EMG from a dynamic MVC can be
used, although it is recognized that neither method is guaranteed to be able to reveal how active a muscle
is in relation to its maximal activation capacity.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023
2. Overview of methods used to normalize EMGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
3. Effect of normalization method on EMGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
3.1. Magnitude and pattern of output. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
3.1.1. Isometric-arbMVC method under different conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
3.1.2. Isometric-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
3.1.3. Isokinetic-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
3.1.4. Dynamic-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
3.2. Sensitivity of methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
3.3. Inter-individual variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
3.4. Intra-individual variability (reliability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
4. Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
5. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033

1. Introduction
If an electromyographer wishes to know how active a muscle is,
or how long it is active for, the raw electromyogram (EMG) is often
processed, for example, using a linear envelope or root mean
E-mail address: a.burden@mmu.ac.uk
square (RMS) procedure. If EMGs that are processed in this way,
as opposed to being processed in the frequency domain, are to be
compared between trials that require reapplication of electrodes,
between muscles, or between individuals, they also need to be nor-
malized (e.g. Cram and Kasman, 1998; De Luca, 1997; Knutson and
Soderberg, 1995; Kumar, 1996; Perry, 1992). This is done by divid-
ing the EMG from a specific task or event by the EMG from a
reference contraction of the same muscle. The reference EMG is

1050-6411/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.07.004
Table 1
Studies comparing the output from methods of amplitude normalization of the electromyogram (EMG).
Author
Allison et al. (1993)
Allison et al. (1998)
Balogh et al. (1999)
Bao et al. (1995)e
Benoit et al. (2003)
Bolgla and Uhl (2007)
Burden and Bartlett (1999)
Burden et al. (2003)
Chapman et al. (2010)
Finucane et al. (1998)
1024
Comparison criteria Task Musclesa Method of EMG Methods of EMG normalizationc Statistical Findings
processingb techniquesd
Sensitivity; inter- Stretch-shorten BB RMS 100 ms Isometric-subMVC: Inter-individual Output of (a), (b), (e), (h) do not reflect
individual variability cycle elbow window (a) No mass, total EMG CV; ANOVA changes seen in un-normalized EMG due to
movements with EA (b) No mass, mean EMG change in velocity for concentric data. CV
and without 2.3 kg (c) No mass, peak EMG generally decreased by (d), (e), (f) and (j) for
and at 20 and (d) 2.3 kg, mean EMG concentric data, and increased by (g), (h)
40 cycles min 1 (e) 2.3 kg, peak EMG and (i) for concentric and eccentric data
(f) 2.3 kg, total EMG
Isometric-arbMVC:
(g) total EMG
(h) mean EMG
(i) peak EMG
(j) Meantask
(k) Peaktask
A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
Sensitivity Abdominal RA, ALA RMS (a) Isometric-subMVC: Inter-individual Output of (b), (c) and (d) do not reflect
hollowing and Leg lift CV; ANOVA changes seen in un-normalized ALA EMG.
bracing Isometric-arbMVC: CV greater for (b), (c) and (d) than (a)
(b) Sit-up
(c) Cross sit-up
(d) Side-bend
Inter-individual Repetitive paper UT RMS (a) Isometric-arbMVC: Inter-individual CV CV greater for (a) than (b)
variability laminating Upper arm abd. to 90°
(b) Isometric-subMVC:
Upper arm abd. to 90° holding 1 kg
Magnitude of output Occupational task UT RMS 100 ms Isometric-arbMVC: t-Test Magnitude of output greater for (a) than (b).
window (a) Unilat. shoulder elev. No other comparisons provided
(b) Bilat. shoulder elev.
(c) Bilat. upper arm abd.
Isometric-subMVC:
(d) Elbow ext. hold. 1 kg
(e) Elbow 90° hold. 1 kg
Sensitivity; inter- Gait, limb with and VL, VM, RF, ST, LE (fc = 6 Hz) (a) Isometric-arbMVC Inter-individual (a) and (c) better at detecting differences
individual variability without ACL injury BF, MG EA (b) MeanTask CV; t-tests between injured and non-injured limbs than
(c) PeakTask (b). All methods showed similar inter-
individual variability
Reliability: test–retest; Hip abduction Gmed RMS window (a) Isometric-arbMVC ICC; SEM; CV (a) More reliable that (b) and (c). (b) and (c)
inter-individual exercises (a) 500 ms (b) MeanTask Less inter-individual variability than (a)
variability (b), (c) 200 ms (c) PeakTask
Magnitude of output; Isotonic elbow BB MAV 100 ms (a) MeanTask RMS difference Small difference in magnitude between (d)
inter-individual flexion and window with (b) PeakTask between (d) and and (c). CV greater for (a)–(d) than for un-
variability; sensitivity extension at 50, 10 ms overlap (c) Isometric-arbMVC (a), (b) and (c); normalized EMGs, and greater for (c) and (d)
100, 150 and 200 N (d) Isokinetic-specMVC ANOVA; inter- than for (a) and (b)
individual CV
Magnitude of output; Normal gait VL, VM, BF, ST RMS 50 ms window (a) MeanTask RMS, ABS and % Small difference in magnitude between (c)
reliability: test–retest; EA (b) PeakTask difference; intra- and (d). Stride to stride reliability
inter-individual (c) Isometric-arbMVC and inter- significantly worse for (d). Inter-individual
variability (d) Isokinetic-specMVC individual VR and variability lower for (a) and (b) than for (c)
CV and (d)
Reliability: between- Cycling TA, TP, PL, LG, FWR (a) Isometric-arbMVC RMS difference and Output of (c) more reliable than that of (a)
day; inter-individual SO (b) Isometric-subMVC LSD; ANOVA and (b). Output of (c) has lower inter-
variability (c) PeakTask individual variability than (a) and (b)
Reliability: between-day Submaximal RF, VL, VM RMS 11.75 ms (a) Isometric-arbMVC ICC and SEM Intra-tester and inter-tester reliability
isokinetic knee window similar between non-normalized EMG and
1
extension at 60° s (a). Concentric normalized EMGs more

Hansson et al. (2000)
Kashigawa et al. (1995)
Kellis and Baltzopoulos
(1996)
Knudson and Johnston (1993)
Knutson et al. (1994)
Lehman (2002)
Milerad et al. (1991)
Mirka (1991)
Morris et al. (1998)
Nieminen et al. (1993)e
Nishijima et al. (2010)
Rouffet and Hautier (2008)
Shiavi et al. (1986)
Shiavi et al. (1987)
Yang and Winter (1984)
reliable than eccentric
Inter-individual Cleaning and office MT RMS 125 ms (a) Isometric-arbMVC: upper arm abd. to Combined inter- CV greater for (a) than (b)
variability work in a hospital window 90° task and inter-
(b) Isometric-subMVC: upper arm abd. to individual CV
90° holding 1 kg
Reliability: test–retest Chewing gum AT, PT, M, DA LE (a) MeanTask CV; ICC; Friedman Intra- and inter-individual variability lower
and between-day; inter- (b) PeakTask test for (a) and (b) than for un-normalized EMGs,
individual variability with (a) similar to (b) for inter-individual
variability
Magnitude of output Isokinetic knee BF, RF, VM, VL MAV 10 ms Antagonist EMG by agonist EMG: ANOVA Output of (b) significantly greater than that
extension and window (a) Isometric-arbMVC of (a) for concentric BF
flexion at 30, 90, (b) Isokinetic-specMVC
120 and 150° s 1
Magnitude of output Sit-to-stand VM, SO, MG MAV 50 ms (a) Isometric-specMVC Mean RMS, max. Small difference between magnitude of (a)
movement window (b) Isometric-arbMVC: ankle and knee and average diff. and (b) could due related to variability of
joint = 90° and 140° between (a) and (b) EMGs from isometric MVCs
A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
Inter-individual Balance board MG FWR (a) Isometric-arbMVC Inter- and intra- ICC significantly greater, and VR lower, for
variability; reliability EA (b) PeakTask ind. CV; VR; ICC; (a) vs. (b) and (c). Intra- and inter-individual
(c) MeanTask Friedman test CV greater for (a) vs. (b) and (c)
Reliability: between-day Quiet standing ES LE (fc = 2.5 Hz) (a) Isometric-arbMVC ICC No difference in ICC between (a), (b) and (c),
Isometric-subMVC: although all methods improved reliability
(b) Peak EMG over non-normalized EMGs
(c) Mean EMG
None Dentistry UT, IS, ECR RMS 100 ms (a) Isometric-arbMVC None comparing (b) ‘may be a more reliable way to express
window (b) Isometric-subMVC: arms abd., elbows normalization myoelectric activity on a group level. . .’ than
90°, holding 2 kg method (a)
Magnitude of output Isokinetic and RA, EO, ES, LD MAV 20 ms (a) Isometric-specMVC % error between (a) % error (mean = 15–50%) dependant on
isotonic trunk window with 2 ms (b) Isometric-arbMVC: vertical trunk and (b) muscle, and increased as trunk angle
flexions and step changed from vertical
extensions at 20%
and 40% max. and
at 0, 5°, 10°, 15°
and 20° s 1
Inter-electrode Isokinetic upper Three MAV 200 ms (a) Isometric-arbMVC Inter-electrode site CV greater for (a) than for (b) or (c)
variability? arm ext./int. electrode sites window (b) PeakTask CV
rotation, flex./ext., on IS, SC, SS (c) MeanTask
and abd./add. at
90° and 180° s 1
Magnitude of output Solitaire test and UT, MT, SS, IS, RMS 50 ms window Isometric-arbMVC: Friedman two-way Significant difference in magnitude between
static hold of 4 kg AD, MD (a) All upper arm movements analysis of variance (a) and (b), for all muscles
weight (b) Upper arm flexion
Magnitude and shape of Normal gait TA, MG, SO, LE (fc = 3 Hz) (a) Isometric-arbMVC ABS; shape diff.; CV No qualitative shape difference in output
output; inter-individual VM, RF, BF, EA (b) Dynamic-subMVC and VR; t-test between (a) and (b). No significant
variability Gmed, Gmax difference in CV or VR between (a) and (b)
Magnitude of output; Cycling Gmax, VL, RF RMS 25 ms (a) Dynamic-specMVC: cycling with CV and VR; t-test; Significant difference in magnitude between
1
reliability: test–retest; BF, MG, SO window friction load of 0.05 and 0.075 kg kg B&A (a) and (b) in MG, Gmax and VL. Significant
inter-individual EA of body mass difference in reliability for BF, and in inter-
variability (b) Isometric-arbMVC individual variability in most muscles
Inter-individual Normal gait TA, G, RF, MH, LE (a) MeanTask Inter-individual CV CV lower for (a) than (b) during periods of
variability Gmed, LH EA (b) PeakTask muscle quiescence
Inter-individual Normal gait TA, G, SO, RF, LE (a) MeanTask Inter-individual CV and V/S similar for (a) and (b)
variability VL, MH, Gmed EA (b) PeakTask CV; V/S
Inter-individual Normal gait RF, VL, BF, TA, LE (fc = 3 Hz) (a) Isometric-subMVC Inter-individual CV CV increased by (a) and (b) and reduced by
variability SO EA (b) EMG/joint moment (c) and (d) in relation to un-normalized EMG
(continued on next page)
1025
1026 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035

generally processed in exactly the same way as the task EMG and is

Muscles: AD = anterior deltoid; ADD = adductors; ALA = antero-lateral abdominal muscles; AT = anterior temporal; BB = biceps brachii; BF = biceps femoris; DA = anterior digastric; ECR = extensor carpi radialis; ECU = extensor

subMVC = the peak EMG from a submaximal dynamic voluntary contraction; Isometric-arbMVC = arbitrary angle isometric maximal voluntary contraction; Isometric-specMVC = angle specific maximal isometric voluntary contraction;
oblique; IS = infraspinatus; LD = latissimus dorsi; LG = lateral gastrocnemius; LM = lumbar multifidus; LT = lower trapezius; M = masseter; MD = middle deltoid; MG = medial gastrocnemius; MT = middle trapezius; PD = posterior

Method of EMG processing: EA = ensemble average; FWR = full wave rectified; MAV = mean absolute value; LE = linear envelope (i.e. full wave rectifier followed by low pass filter); fc = filter cut off frequency; RMS = root mean

Statistical techniques: ABS = absolute; B&A = Bland and Altman (1986); CV = coefficient of variation; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CIs = 95% confidence intervals; LSD = least significant difference; RMS = root mean
carpi ulnaris; ED = extensor digitorum; EO = external oblique; ES = erector spinae; FCR = flexor carpi radialis; FCU = flexor carpi ulnaris; GA = gastrocnemius; Gmax = gluteus maximus; Gmed = gluteus medius; IO = internal

deltoid; PL = peroneous longus; PM = pectoralis major; PQ = pronator quadratus; PS = posterior temporal; PT = pronator teres; RA = rectus abdominis; RF = rectus femoris; SA = serratus anterior; SC = subscapularis; SO = soleus;

Method of EMG normalization: MeanTask = the mean EMG from the task under investigation; PeakTask = the mean EMG from the task under investigation; Isometric-subMVC = submaximal isometric voluntary contraction; Dynamic-
ICC greater for (b) than for (a). 95% CIs large
commonly known as the reference value, anchor or normalization
factor. Instead of being presented in lV or mV, the magnitude of
the EMG from the task is, therefore, expressed as a proportion or,
for (a), (b) and un-normalized EMG
more commonly, a percentage of the reference value (e.g. Clarys,
2000; Clarys and Cabri, 1993; Cram and Kasman, 1998; Perry,
1992).
Normalization of EMGs is necessary because of the many tech-
nical, anatomical and physiological factors that can influence EMG
magnitude (e.g. Cram and Kasman, 1998; Knutson and Soderberg,
1995; Kumar, 1996; Perry, 1992). De Luca (1997) provided the
Findings

most comprehensive review of these factors, and Lehman and

McGill (1999) provided a concise and compelling account of the
importance of normalizing EMGs, including the dangers of misin-
terpreting the signal if this process is not carried out. Additionally,
in healthy individuals, normalizing EMGs by using the EMG re-
Dynamic-specMVC = angle specific maximal dynamic voluntary contraction; Isokinetic-specMVC = angle and angular velocity specific maximal isokinetic voluntary contraction.
ICC; 95% CIs

corded from a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) as the refer-

techniquesd
Statistical

ence value may allow the electromyographer to assess what

percentage of the maximal activation capacity of the muscle the
task EMG represents (e.g. Allison et al., 1993, 1998; Yang and Win-
ter, 1984).
(a) Using same muscle EMG from task 1
(b) Using different muscle EMG from

Despite electromyography being used by scientists for over two

SS = supraspinatus; ST = semitendinosus; TA = tibialis anterior; TP = tibialis posterior; UT = upper trapezius; VM = vastus medialis; VL = vastus lateralis.

hundred years, normalization is a relatively recent concept. To the

Methods of EMG normalizationc

author’s knowledge Eberhart et al. (1954) provided the first exam-

ple of normalized EMGs when they presented processed EMGs
from the quadriceps recorded during walking gait as a percentage
of the maximum muscle activity that occurred during the gait cy-
Isometric-arbMVC:

cle. Recent reviews (e.g. Burden, 2008; Clarys, 2000; Clarys and
tasks 1 and 2
(d) MeanTask
(c) PeakTask

Cabri, 1993; Cram and Kasman, 1998; De Luca, 1997; Kamen and
Gabriel, 2010; Knutson and Soderberg, 1995; Kumar, 1996; Perry,
1992; Robertson, 2004; Winter, 1996) include discussions of the
benefits and limitations of different normalization methods. How-
ever, these were subsections of more general reviews and, as a con-
These studies also compare other normalization methods which translate EMG amplitude into force or torque.
Method of EMG

sequence, did not contain the necessary detail to allow

LE (fc = 6 Hz)

electromyographers to make informed choices over which method

processingb

IEMG of LE

to use.
The Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology’s (JEK) guide-
square; SEM = standard error of the measurement; VR = variance ratio; V/S = variation to signal ratio.
EA

lines for reporting research states that it is common to normalize

EMGs in relation to the value from an MVC, and that normalization
of the EMG from one contractile condition can occur using the EMG
Musclesa

from another condition. Similarly, the SENIAM project (Merletti

VM, VL

et al., 1999) stated that EMGs should be normalized by dividing

them by the EMG from a reference contraction, and used the
with/without ankle

MVC as an example of this. Both groups implied that the MVC is

usually isometric but also recognized that it could be dynamic.
Knee extension
isometric MVC

isometric MVC

Neither group, however, provided guidance as to when a dynamic

dorsiflexor

MVC should be used in preference to an isometric MVC, and vice

versa. SENIAM and the JEK also both advised electromyographers
Task

to report such information as the joint angle and/or muscle length

during the MVC, and the rate of rise of force; thus implying that
Reliability: test–retest?

these factors will influence the EMG.

Comparison criteria

Despite current endorsement from both the JEK and SENIAM,

use of the EMG from an MVC has often received criticism. One crit-
icism is that this method yields outputs that are in excess of unity
or 100% (Clarys, 2000; Clarys and Cabri, 1993) particularly during
rapid, forceful contractions (Perry, 1992) or muscle lengthening
(Winter, 1996). For example, Jobe et al. (1984) reported EMGs from
square; IEMG = integrated EMG.

the serratus anterior during the acceleration phase of the overarm

throw to be 226% of the EMG from a maximal manual muscle test.
The existence of normalized EMGs in excess of 100% indicates that
Zakaria et al. (1996)

using the EMG from an MVC to normalize task EMGs may not re-
Table 1 (continued)

veal the proportion of an individual’s muscle activation capacity

required to perform a specific task. Perry (1992) and Clarys
Author

(2000) stated that the other major limitation of using the EMG
from an MVC as the denominator in the normalization equation
a

e
c
b

concerns the poor reliability of EMGs that has been reported from
Table 2
Studies comparing the reference factor from methods of amplitude normalization of the electromyogram (EMG).

Authors Comparison criteria Musclesa Method of EMG Methods of EMG normalizationc Statistical techniquesd Findings
processingb

Allison et al. (1998) Reliability: test–retest RA, ALA RMS (a) Isometric-subMVC: ICC; SEM (a) resulted in lower ICCs and lower SEMs than (b), (c)
Leg lift or (d). Thus (a) showed poorer relative reliability, but
Isometric-arbMVC: better absolute reliability than (b), (c) or (d)
(b) Sit-up
(c) Cross sit-up
(d) Side-bend
Ball and Scurr (2010) Reliability: between-day MG, LG, SO RMS 20 ms window (a) Isometric-arbMVC Intra-individual CV; Magnitude from (d) and (e) greater than other
and week; magnitude (b) Isometric-subMVC ANOVA methods, particularly for LG. Only (d) produced
(c) Con. isokinetic MVC: 1.05, ’acceptable’ reliability for all muscles between days
1.31 and 1.83 rad s 1 and weeks. Other methods were muscle and condition
(d) Squat jump dependent, although (c) generally showed poorest
(e) Sprint reliability

A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035

Barr et al. (2001) Magnitude; reliability: BB, PT, FCR, FCR, RMS 40 ms window Isometric-arbMVC: ICC; ANOVA BB magnitude lower in (b) than in (a), and vice versa
between-week ECR, ED ECU, PQ (a) forearm pronated, wrist at 15° for ECR. Other muscles unaffected. Reliability was
ext./add. muscle dependent and ICCs ’poor to moderate’
(b) forearm and wrist in neutral
position
Burnett et al. (2007) Reliability: test–retest Neck muscles LE (fc = 4 Hz) (a) Isometric-arbMVC ICC; %SEM; %CV Reliability of (a) better than (b). Shown by ICC, %SEM
(b) Isometric-subMVC and %CV
Dankaerts et al. (2004) Reliability: within and RA, EO, IO, ES, LM LE (a) Isometric-arbMVC ICC; %SEM (a) and (b) showed ’excellent’ within-day reliability in
between-day (b) Isometric-subMVC both ICC and %SEM. Between-day reliability was ’good’
for (b) but ’poorer’ for (a), particularly in %SEM
Ekstrom et al. (2005) Magnitude; reliability: SA, LT, MT, UT RMS 20 ms window Nine variations of Isometric- ICC; ANOVA Large inter-individual variability in which variation of
test–retest arbMVC isometric MVC resulted in the greatest EMG
magnitude
Hsu et al. (2006) Magnitude; reliability: TA, LG, MG, SO, RF, LE (fc = 10 Hz) Isometric-arbMVC: ANOVA; B&A; t-test; ICC Apart from SO, no difference in EMG magnitude
within day VM, VL, BF, ST IEMG (a) Traditional between (a) and (b). ICCs showed ’poor’ reliability
(b) Alternate flex./ext. at 0.66 Hz
Hunter et al. (2002) Magnitude; inter- RF LE (fc = 5 Hz) Isometric-arbMVC: ANOVA; CV Magnitude greater for (a) than for (b), (c) and (d).
individual variability IEMG? (a) Using isokinetic dynamometer Inter-individual variability lower for (d) than for (a),
(b) Using cycle with knee angle of (b), (c) and (d)
60°
(c) Using cycle with knee angle of
108°
(d) Dynamic MVC
Kelly et al. (1996) Magnitude; reliability: IS, SC, SS, PM, LD, IEMG 27 variations of Isometric-arbMVC ANOVA; reliability Four variations identified that provided greatest
test-retest AD, MD, PD coefficient magnitude and reliability for all eight muscles
Netto and Burnett Reliability: within and Neck muscles LE (fc = 5 Hz) Isometric-arbMVC: ICC; %SEM Reliability of (a), (b) and (c) better than (d) and (e),
(2006) between-day (a) Using isokinetic dynamometer shown by both ICC and %SEM. Reliability of (d) and (e)
(b) Using cable dynamometer particularly poor between days
(c) Manual resistance
Isometric-subMVC:
(d) Isokinetic dyn.
(e) Cable dyn.
Ng et al. (2002) Magnitude; reliability: RA, EO, IO, LD, ES, RMS Isometric-arbMVC in flex., ext., lat. ANOVA; ICC For LD and ES, maximum magnitude was found in two
between-day LM flex. and rot. directions, and in one direction for other muscles.
Good to excellent reliability shown in all muscles
Norcross et al. (2010) Reliability: test–retest; Gmax, Gmed, RF, RMS 3 s window (a) Isometric-subMVC: ICC; SEM; intra- and (b) Demonstrated ’good-to-excellent’ and better
inter-individual VL, ADD, BF Single leg stance inter-individual CV reliability than (a) based on ICCs. Intra-individual CVs
variability (b) Isometric-arbMVC higher for (a) than (b), and muscle dependent for
inter-individual CVs

1027
(continued on next page)
1028 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035

oblique; IS = infraspinatus; LD = latissimus dorsi; LG = lateral gastrocnemius; LM = lumbar multifidus; LT = lower trapezius; M = masseter; MD = middle deltoid; MG = medial gastrocnemius; MT = middle trapezius; PD = posterior

Method of EMG processing: EA = ensemble average; FWR = full wave rectified; MAV = mean absolute value; LE = linear envelope (i.e. full wave rectifier followed by low pass filter); fc = filter cut off frequency; RMS = root mean

Statistical techniques: ABS = absolute; B&A=Bland and Altman (1986); CV = coefficient of variation; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CIs = 95% confidence intervals; LSD = least significant difference; RMS = root mean
carpi ulnaris; ED = extensor digitorum; EO = external oblique; ES = erector spinae; FCR = flexor carpi radialis; FCU = flexor carpi ulnaris; GA = gastrocnemius; Gmax = gluteus maximus; Gmed = gluteus medius; IO = internal

Method of EMG normalization: MeanTask = the mean EMG from the task under investigation; PeakTask = the mean EMG from the task under investigation; Isometric-subMVC = submaximal isometric voluntary contraction; Dynamic-
subMVC = the peak EMG from a submaximal dynamic voluntary contraction; Isometric-arbMVC = arbitrary angle isometric maximal voluntary contraction; Isometric-specMVC = angle specific maximal isometric voluntary contraction;
Muscles: AD = anterior deltoid; ADD = adductors; ALA = antero-lateral abdominal muscles; AT = anterior temporal; BB = biceps brachii; BF = biceps femoris; DA = anterior digastric; ECR = extensor carpi radialis; ECU = extensor

deltoid; PL = peroneous longus; PM = pectoralis major; PQ = pronator quadratus; PS = posterior temporal; PT = pronator teres; RA = rectus abdominis; RF = rectus femoris; SA = serratus anterior; SC = subscapularis; SO = soleus;
such contractions (e.g. Yang and Winter, 1983). Superior reliability

Large inter-individual variability in which variation of

of EMGs from submaximal isometric contractions (e.g. Yang and

(a) resulted in lower ICCs than (b) or (c). Within-day

CVs similar for all three methods. Between-day CVs
Winter, 1983) has resulted in EMGs from such contractions being
isometric MVC resulted in the greatest EMG used as reference values in the normalization equation (e.g. Yang
and Winter, 1984). Moreover, De Luca (1997) advocated the use
of EMGs from contractions that are less than 80% of MVC in order
progressively larger for (c), (b) and (a)
to provide a more stable reference value.
Based on the above limitations, Clarys (2000) suggested that
EMGs from MVCs should not be used to normalize EMGs from dy-
namic contractions. Perry (1992) reached the more general conclu-
sion that, at present, there is no single best normalization method.
In recent years the continued publication of articles that aim to
ascertain the most appropriate normalization method (e.g. Bolgla
magnitude

and Uhl, 2007; Chapman et al., 2010; Nishijima et al., 2010; Rouffet
Findings

and Hautier, 2008) indicates that consensus has still not been
reached.
Dynamic-specMVC = angle specific maximal dynamic voluntary contraction; Isokinetic-specMVC = angle and angular velocity specific maximal isokinetic voluntary contraction. The first aim of this paper is to evaluate methods that have been
used to normalize EMGs recorded from healthy participants, i.e.,
Statistical techniquesd

those that are able to generate MVCs that are close to their possible
maximal activation level. This will be done by reviewing the find-
ings of all, to the author’s knowledge, published research that has
compared the output from such normalization methods or the
ICC; CV
ANOVA

SS = supraspinatus; ST = semitendinosus; TA = tibialis anterior; TP = tibialis posterior; UT = upper trapezius; VM = vastus medialis; VL = vastus lateralis.

denominators of the methods. It should be noted that such re-

search (see Tables 1 and 2) has generally been limited to tasks that
involve non-isometric contractions and that do not fatigue the
muscle over long periods. Comparisons will be based on criteria
Methods of EMG normalizationc

Eleven variations of Isometric-

that have been traditionally been used by electromyographers

when deciding on which method to use and, as such, the same cri-
teria that have been used by previous studies that have compared
(a) Isometric-arbMVC

methods (see Tables 1 and 2). These include the magnitude and
Isometric-subMVC:

pattern of the output of the methods, which relates to how effec-

(b) 50% of (a)
(c) 30% of (a)

tive they are in comparing EMGs, the sensitivity of the methods,

and their effect on both the intra- and inter-individual variability
arbMVC

of EMGs. Based on the findings of this appraisal, the second aim

is to provide a series of recommendations for electromyographers
on when and why particular methods should be used, including
the benefits and limitations of each.
square; SEM = standard error of the measurement; VR = variance ratio; V/S = variation to signal ratio.
Method of EMG

LE (fc = 6 Hz)

2. Overview of methods used to normalize EMGs

processingb

Since Yang and Winter’s comparison of normalization methods

LE

in 1984 twenty-five further studies have compared the outputs

from different methods that have been used to normalize EMGs.
These studies, summarised in Table 1, compared EMGs normalized
RA, EO, IO, LD, ES

from more than 25 muscles or muscle groups employed in a wide

variety of tasks ranging from walking to dentistry. In addition,
Musclesa

other studies, summarised in Table 2, have compared the reference

value, or denominator, of the normalization equation from differ-
TB

ent methods, but without applying this to EMGs recorded from a

separate task. Despite the diverse terminology used to describe
Reliability: within and

the normalization methods, essentially eight fundamentally differ-

Comparison criteria

ent ones have been compared with no study providing a complete

comparison of them all. Subtle variations in the same method be-
between-day
Magnitude

tween studies are mainly due to vicissitudes in EMG processing,

orientation of body segments and/or level of submaximal contrac-
tion, as detailed in Table 1. The following list labels and describes
square; IEMG = integrated EMG.

these methods by the nature of the EMG that forms the denomina-
tor of the associated normalization equation. The numerator of the
equation is always the EMG from the task under investigation, and
Vera-Garcia et al.

the numerator and denominator are usually from the same muscle
Yang and Winter
Table 2 (continued)

and processed in an identical manner. All of the denominators

listed below yield an output that is the ratio of the task EMG to
(1983)
(2010)
Authors

the EMG used as the denominator in the normalization equation,

usually expressed as a percentage, as previously outlined in
c
b
a

Section 1.
 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
MeanTask: The mean EMG from the task under investigation, usually
obtained from an ensemble average rather than a single trial.
PeakTask: The peak EMG from the task under investigation, usually
obtained from an ensemble average rather than a single trial.
Submaximal isometric voluntary contraction (Isometric-subMVC):
The peak EMG from a submaximal isometric voluntary contraction.
Submaximal dynamic voluntary contraction (Dynamic-subMVC):
The peak EMG from a submaximal non-isometric voluntary
contraction.
Arbitrary angle isometric maximal voluntary contraction (Isomet-
ric-arbMVC): The peak EMG from a maximal isometric voluntary
contraction, usually obtained from an arbitrary mid-range joint
angle.
Angle specific maximal isometric voluntary contraction (Isometric-
specMVC): The peak EMG from a maximal isometric voluntary con-
traction with the same muscle action, and joint angle or muscle
length as the task EMG.
Angle specific maximal dynamic voluntary contraction (Dynamic-
specMVC): The peak EMG from a maximal non-isometric voluntary
contraction with the same muscle action, and joint angle or muscle
length as the task EMG.
Angle and angular velocity specific maximal isokinetic voluntary
contraction (Isokinetic-specMVC): The peak EMG from a maximal
isokinetic voluntary contraction with the same muscle action, joint
angle or muscle length, and angular velocity or rate of change of
muscle length as the task EMG.
These methods all provide an output that relates the task EMG
to the EMG obtained during a particular standardised event and, as
such, were termed as bioelectric normalizations by Mathiassen
et al. (1995). An alternative manner of normalization involves
translating the EMG that forms the denominator of the equation
in the Isometric-subMVC or Isometric-arbMVC methods into a force
or torque variable (e.g. Marras and Davis, 2001; Marras et al.,
2001; Mathiassen et al., 1995). One purpose of such biomechanical
normalization methods is to generate an estimate of the physical
load on the muscle under investigation. A comprehensive review
of studies in which this was the aim was previously been provided
by Mathiassen et al. (1995). Moreover, because of the different
aims of bioelectric and biomechanical normalization methods, the
latter are beyond the scope of this review. However, some studies
that appear in Table 1 (e.g. Bao et al., 1995) do include biomechan-
ical normalization methods in addition to comparisons between
bioelectric methods.
3. Effect of normalization method on EMGs
3.1. Magnitude and pattern of output
As previously stated, the normalization methods considered
here yield an output that is simply the ratio of the task EMG to
the EMG used as the denominator in the normalization equation.
Thus, depending on the nature of the denominator, outputs from
different normalization methods can differ in magnitude and pat-
tern. Numerous studies (Allison et al., 1993; Benoit et al., 2003;
Burden and Bartlett, 1999; Burden et al., 2003; Kashigawa et al.,
1995; Knutson et al., 1994; Morris et al., 1998; Shiavi et al.,
1986, 1987) have shown the greater magnitude of output from
the MeanTask method in comparison to the PeakTask method that oc-
curs by virtue of the smaller denominator used in the normaliza-
tion equation. In addition, Allison et al. (1993, 1998), Balogh
et al. (1999), Hansson et al. (2000) and Milerad et al. (1991) all re-
ported the output of the Isometric-subMVC method to be greater
than the output of the Isometric-arbMVC method. Similarly, Nishij-
ima et al. (2010) reported EMGs normalized by the Dynamic-subMVC
1029
method to be greater than those normalized by the Isometric-
arbMVC method. Allison et al. (1993) also showed that the output
from Isometric-subMVC methods differed depending on the size of
the load that each variation of this method used to elicit the refer-
ence contraction.
3.1.1. Isometric-arbMVC method under different conditions
Differences in the output of the Isometric-arbMVC method have
also been reported for variations in the nature of the denominator.
Bao et al. (1995) showed that use of a unilateral isometric MVC as
the normalization reference value gave a slightly higher output
than a bilateral isometric MVC. A significantly lower output was
found by Nieminen et al. (1993) when an isometric MVC recorded
in mid-flexion was used in the normalization equation in compar-
ison to the maximum value from a series of isometric MVCs elic-
ited with the arm in other positions. Similarly, Allison et al.
(1998) also showed significant differences between the outputs
of abdominal muscles after being normalized by EMGs recorded
from two maximal sit-ups and a maximal side-bend.
Other research has also reported differences in reference values
for the Isometric-arbMVC method under different conditions. Ek-
strom et al. (2005), Kelly et al. (1996), Ng et al. (2002) and Vera-
Garcia et al. (2010) all recommended using more than one test to
facilitate finding the optimal reference value in some or all of the
muscles that they tested. In partial support of their recommenda-
tions, Barr et al. (2001) and Hsu et al. (2006) discovered that mus-
cle activation from only two of eight and one of nine muscles
respectively was significantly influenced by variations in the tech-
nique of performing isometric MVCs.
3.1.2. Isometric-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method
Many of the studies summarised in Table 1 used the EMG from
an isometric contraction (i.e., the Isometric-subMVC and/or Isometric-
arbMVC method) to normalize the signal from a dynamic movement.
Mirka (1991) claimed that this was inappropriate, as it did not ac-
count for the movement of the muscle beneath the electrodes that
inevitably occurs during dynamic movements. To test this hypoth-
esis Mirka (1991) and Knudson and Johnston (1993) compared the
output of the Isometric-specMVC method with that of the Isometric-
arbMVC method. Mirka (1991) calculated very large percent differ-
ences (maximum = 703%) between the two methods, especially
when the abdominal muscles were acting as antagonists, due
mainly to the relatively low magnitude signal that they exhibit
when performing this role. Large differences (maximum = 99%)
that also existed when the muscles acted as agonists led Mirka
(1991) to conclude that normalizing EMGs using the Isometric-
arbMVC method, as opposed to the Isometric-specMVC method, re-
sulted in large ‘errors’. Mirka’s initial hypothesis that such ‘errors’
were due to the motion of the skin in relation to the underlying
muscle was supported by a general increase in the difference be-
tween the methods as the trunk angle moved away from the up-
right position that was used in the Isometric-arbMVC method.
However, doubt was cast upon the strength of this claim by Knud-
son and Johnston (1993) who found much smaller differences
(maximum = 34%) between the two methods, albeit in different
muscle groups. In contrast to Mirka, Knudson and Johnston attrib-
uted the relatively minor differences between the output of the
two methods to the poor reliability of EMGs from isometric MVCs,
rather than any actual angle dependent changes in maximal EMG.
3.1.3. Isokinetic-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method
Burden and Bartlett (1999), Burden et al. (2003), and Kellis and
Baltzopoulos (1996) further investigated Mirka’s (1991) claim that
the Isometric-arbMVC method is inappropriate for dynamic activities
by comparing it to the more composite Isokinetic-specMVC method.
Kellis and Baltzopoulos (1996) discovered that the output from this
1030 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
method was significantly greater than from the Isometric-arbMVC
method for each isokinetic speed used and at each 10° interval
throughout the range of motion. Maximal differences of 127%
and 83%, in concentric and eccentric contractions, respectively,
indicate that EMGs recorded from isometric MVCs were, in some
cases, twice the magnitude of the signal recorded from isokinetic
MVCs. This, as well as the difference in the pattern of the output
between the two methods, led the authors to support Mirka
(1991) in condemning use of the Isometric-arbMVC method. The
Isokinetic-specMVC method used by Kellis and Baltzopoulos (1996)
produced antagonistic EMGs that were greater at the initial and fi-
nal phases of the range of motion, in comparison to the relatively
uniform output from the Isometric-arbMVC method. This difference
in output pattern was due to the ascending–descending pattern
of the agonist EMG that was used as the denominator in the Isoki-
netic-specMVC method (Kellis and Baltzopoulos, 1996). Compared to
the Isokinetic-specMVC method, the pattern of output from the Iso-
metric-arbMVC method will reflect that of the un-normalized EMG
by virtue of the single value that it uses to normalize the numerous
values that may be recorded from the task.
In contrast, Burden and Bartlett (1999) and Burden et al. (2003)
discovered only minor differences between the two normalization
methods for the biceps brachii and knee flexors and extensors,
respectively. This was as a consequence, as shown by the authors,
of the mode of exercise, joint angle/length of the musculotendious
unit, and joint angular velocity/rate of change of length of unit hav-
ing no significant influence on the EMGs recorded from the maxi-
mal voluntary exersions that formed the denominator of the
Isokinetic-specMVC method.
3.1.4. Dynamic-specMVC method vs. Isometric-arbMVC method
Only Rouffet and Hautier (2008) have compared the magnitude
of EMGs normalized by the Dynamic-specMVC and Isometric-arbMVC
methods. Other authors (Ball and Scurr, 2010; Hunter et al.,
2002) compared the magnitude of the denominators of methods
similar to that of the Dynamic-specMVC method, but without subse-
quently using them to normalize EMGs from a particular task.
Hunter et al. (2002) found that isometric MVCs performed on an
isokinetic dynamometer produced EMGs of far greater magnitude
than dynamic MVCs performed on a cycle ergometer. However,
their findings should be viewed with caution as their processed
EMGs were reported to be between 6 and 402 mV, the upper end
of the range being far greater than would be possible. By contrast,
Ball and Scurr (2010) reported EMGs from the triceps surae to be
greater during squat jumping and sprinting than from fast isoki-
netic MVCs. Rouffet and Hautier (2008) reported small, but signif-
icantly different values between the denominators of both
normalization methods for three of the six muscles analysed, with
the Dynamic-specMVC method having larger reference values than
the Isometric-arbMVC. Despite contrasting findings for the biceps
femoris and the medial gastrocnemius, the authors’ advocated
use of the Dynamic-specMVC method over the Isometric-arbMVC
method when normalizing EMGs from dynamic activities. How-
ever, like Hunter et al. (2002), Rouffet and Hautier’s findings should
be viewed with caution as they presented processed EMGs of be-
tween 45 and 104 mV.
3.2. Sensitivity of methods
Sensitivity refers to whether a normalization method is able to
reflect changes seen in the un-normalized EMG between different
tasks (Allison et al., 1993, 1998; Burden and Bartlett, 1999),
although Chapman et al. (2010) used inter-individual variability
to assess it. Statistically significant differences in un-normalized
EMGs between different loads experienced in stretch-shorten cycle
movements (Allison et al., 1993) and isotonic movements of the
elbow (Burden and Bartlett, 1999) were also found between the
outputs of the Mean and PeakTask methods (Allison et al., 1993),
the Isometric-subMVC method (Allison et al., 1993) and the Isomet-
ric-arbMVC method (Burden and Bartlett, 1999). However, Allison
et al. (1993) and Burden and Bartlett (1999) disagreed over
whether the Mean and PeakTask methods were sensitive enough
to detect changes in load during elbow movements. Burden and
Bartlett (1999) stated that neither of these methods would be ex-
pected to reflect changes in muscle activation levels between tasks
by virtue of the nature of the denominator used in their normaliza-
tion equations. In partial agreement, Benoit et al. (2003) reported
that the Isometric-arbMVC method was superior to the MeanTask
and, particularly, the PeakTask method at distinguishing differences
in muscle activity between limbs. Furthermore, Allison et al.
(1998) reported that only the Isometric-subMVC method was able
to detect the same significant differences in the antero-lateral
abdominal muscles that were apparent in the non-normalized
EMGs between trunk hollowing and bracing. They also discovered
that both the Isometric-subMVC and Isometric-arbMVC methods re-
flected the lack of difference in the rectus abdominis between hol-
lowing and bracing that was seen in the un-normalized EMGs.
3.3. Inter-individual variability
Yang and Winter (1984) were the first authors to discover that
both the MeanTask and PeakTask methods reduced inter-individual
variability, in relation to the un-normalized EMGs. The authors
attributed this to difficulties in stabilisation of limbs and doubts
over whether EMGs from maximal isometric contractions were in-
deed a true reflection of the maximal muscle activity. Burden et al.
(2003) and Shiavi et al. (1986, 1987) later confirmed Yang and
Winter’s findings that the MeanTask method resulted in slightly
lower inter-individual variability than the PeakTask method, for
most muscles analysed during the gait cycle.
Other authors (Allison et al., 1993; Bolgla and Uhl, 2007; Burden
and Bartlett, 1999; Kashigawa et al., 1995; Knutson et al., 1994)
investigated the effect of the MeanTask and PeakTask methods on in-
ter-individual variability in a host of other activities. Most groups
(Allison et al., 1993; Bolgla and Uhl, 2007; Burden and Bartlett,
1999; Knutson et al., 1994) reconfirmed that the MeanTask method
generally showed lower inter-individual variability than the Peak-
Task method. The MeanTask method was also shown by Allison et al.
(1993), Burden and Bartlett (1999) and Kashigawa et al. (1995) to
reduce variability in relation to the un-normalized EMGs. However,
this was only shown by Allison et al. (1993) in the concentric phase
of the stretch-shorten cycle and, in contrast to other authors (Bur-
den and Bartlett, 1999; Burden et al., 2003; Kashigawa et al., 1995;
Yang and Winter, 1984), not at all in the EMGs normalized by the
PeakTask method. These studies show that the MeanTask and, to a les-
ser degree, the PeakTask methods tend to produce a normal EMG
template for a particular task.
Allison et al. (1993), Bolgla and Uhl (2007), Burden and Bartlett
(1999), Burden et al. (2003), Chapman et al. (2010) and Knutson
et al. (1994) also demonstrated that inter-individual variability
was generally much greater in EMGs that had been normalized
by the Isometric-arbMVC method in contrast to the MeanTask and/or
PeakTask methods. The findings of Burden et al. and Knutson et al.
were of added importance as they dispelled Yang and Winter’s
(1984) earlier concern that use of the peak EMG from a single trial
as the denominator, rather than from an ensemble average, would
add to the variability caused by the PeakTask method. Allison et al.
(1993) further reported high variability from the Isometric-arbMVC
method in relation to the un-normalized EMG, which had previ-
ously been predicted by Yang and Winter based on their earlier
work (Yang and Winter, 1983), in which they calculated the reli-
ability of EMGs from isometric MVCs. In contrast, subsequent stud-
 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
ies by Burden and colleagues (Burden and Bartlett, 1999; Burden
et al., 2003) demonstrated that alongside other normalization
methods which they investigated, the Isometric-arbMVC reduced
variability in relation to un-normalized EMGs. The same authors
also found minor differences between the Isometric-arbMVC and
Isokinetic-specMVC methods. Additionally, although significant dif-
ferences were found between the Isometric-arbMVC and Dynamic-
specMVC methods by Rouffet and Hautier (2008), the direction of
the difference was muscle dependent.
Two Isometric-subMVC methods, each employing a different load
(zero mass and 2.3 kg), were also included in Allison et al.’s (1993)
evaluation of normalization methods. Both methods generally re-
sulted in greater inter-individual variability than the MeanTask
and PeakTask methods, in agreement with Yang and Winter
(1984), and lower variability than the Isometric-arbMVC method;
especially for the concentric phase of the stretch-shorten cycle.
Balogh et al. (1999) and Hansson et al. (2000) also reported lower
variability from an Isometric-subMVC method than from the Isomet-
ric-arbMVC method. Allison et al. (1998) further supported this lat-
ter finding, although Norcross et al. (2010) reported variability
generally to be greater for the denominator of the Isometric-subMVC
method than for that of the Isometric-arbMVC method. Finally,
Nishijima et al. (2010) reported minor differences in the variability
of EMGs normalized by the Isometric-arbMVC and the Dynamic-
subMVC methods.
Some of the above authors (Allison et al., 1993; Hansson et al.,
2000; Kashigawa et al., 1995; Norcross et al., 2010; Shiavi et al.,
1986; Yang and Winter, 1984) used only the coefficient of variation
(CV) to investigate inter-individual variability. When used in this
situation, the CV is essentially the ratio between the standard devi-
ation and the mean of the output of the normalization method. As
noted at the start of this section, the magnitude of the output from
different normalization methods can vary considerably, which has
the potential to either elevate or reduce the CV. Thus, as noted by
Burden et al. (2003), use of the CV should be viewed with caution
when used to compare the outputs of different normalization
methods. The variance ratio that was devised by Hershler and Mil-
ner (1978) and used by Burden et al. (2003), Knutson et al. (1994)
and Nishijima et al. (2010) does not suffer from the same limita-
tions as the CV and thus can be used to compare the variability
of parameters that have different means. Encouragingly, Burden
et al. (2003) and Nishijima et al. (2010) reported that use of the
VR resulted in similar comparisons to those made using the CV.
3.4. Intra-individual variability (reliability)
It has been shown that normalization improves the test–retest
(Kashigawa et al., 1995) and between-day (Kashigawa et al.,
1995; Lehman, 2002) reliability of un-normalized EMGs. In addi-
tion, Finucane et al. (1998) showed that between-day reliability
was improved over that of un-normalized EMGs for concentric
but not eccentric isokinetic submaximal knee extensions when
using the Isometric-arbMVC method. The same method has generally
also shown improved reliability over the Dynamic-specMVC (Rouffet
and Hautier, 2008), Isokinetic-specMVC (Burden et al., 2003) and
PeakTask and MeanTask methods (Bolgla and Uhl, 2007; Knutson
et al., 1994), but not the Isometric-subMVC method (Lehman,
2002). In contrast, Chapman et al. (2010) reported improved reli-
ability when using the PeakTask method over the Isometric-arbMVC
and the Isometric-subMVC methods. However, the majority of re-
search indicates that normalization methods that reduce inter-
individual variability (e.g. the MeanTask or PeakTask methods) result
in poor reliability, and vice versa, as initially observed by Knutson
et al. (1994).
The above authors used the intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC), VR, root mean square (RMS) difference, least significant dif-
1031
ference (LSD) and/or the standard error of the measurement (SEM)
to assess reliability. In contrast to when using these statistics, use
of the CV revealed better (Knutson et al., 1994) and similar (Bolgla
and Uhl, 2007) reliability for the PeakTask and MeanTask methods
when compared to the Isometric-arbMVC method. However, as pre-
viously stated, use of the CV to compare normalization methods is
only appropriate when their outputs are of a similar magnitude.
Other authors have also compared the reliability of different
modes of contraction, specifically to assess their potential as
denominators in normalization methods. Contrary to the earlier
findings of Yang and Winter (1983), excellent test–retest or with-
in-day reliability of EMGs from both isometric MVCs and submax-
imal voluntary contractions has been reported for abdominal
muscles (Allison et al., 1998) abdominal and paraspinal muscles
(Dankaerts et al., 2004), neck muscles (Burnett et al., 2007; Netto
and Burnett, 2006), and lower limb muscles (Norcross et al.,
2010) using both the ICC and SEM. Furthermore, Burnett et al.
(2007), Netto and Burnett (2006) and Norcross et al. (2010) found
reliability to generally be better for isometric MVCs than for sub-
maximal isometric contractions. However, in comparison to the
findings of Netto and Burnett (2006), Dankaerts et al. (2004) fur-
ther reported between-day reliability to be improved for submax-
imal contractions over isometric MVCs.
Furthermore, Fernández-Pena et al. (2009) discovered excellent
reliability of EMGs from consecutive trials of maximal cycling, and
Ball and Scurr (2010) discovered that the reliability of EMGs was
best for squat jumps and sprints. In agreement with Rouffet and
Hautier (2008), both groups therefore proposed that EMGs from
dynamic maximal exercises should be the preferred normalization
denominator.
4. Discussion and conclusions
Of the 26 studies that have compared the output of EMG nor-
malization methods the majority (fifteen) have assessed methods
on how well they reduce inter-individual variability, eight have
compared reliability of output, nine more the magnitude and/or
pattern of output, four the sensitivity of the methods and a further
three had other or no clear criteria for comparison. Eight different
normalization methods were identified in total, although there
were variations of the same method, with no study comparing
more than four general methods.
The process of making recommendations on the use of normal-
ization methods by reviewing studies that have similar aims and
that have compared the same methods is complicated by method-
ological variations between them, some of which are identified in
Tables 1 and 2. Differences in participant numbers affect the power
of statistical tests that are used to describe differences between
outputs of methods. The way in which EMGs are processed will
influence the magnitude and pattern of raw EMGs and, subse-
quently, the normalization output. Not surprisingly, McLean et al.
(2003) discovered that the magnitude of processed EMGs from iso-
metric MVCs of the upper trapezius decreased as the window
length used to calculate the RMS EMG was increased. As outlined
earlier, the statistical test chosen to assess the reliability and/or in-
ter-individual variability of normalized and un-normalized EMGs
will also influence comparisons, as will the duration between re-
peated tests. Nevertheless, previous research that has compared
similar methods has displayed general themes upon which the fol-
lowing observations and recommendations are made.
Research (Allison et al., 1993; Bolgla and Uhl, 2007; Burden and
Bartlett, 1999; Kashigawa et al., 1995; Knutson et al., 1994) is
unequivocal in its agreement with Yang and Winter (1984) that
the PeakTask or, preferably, the MeanTask method should be used if
the aim of normalization is to maximise the reduction of EMG
1032 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
variability between participants. Yang and Winter (1984) viewed
this as a desirable effect as it improves the sensitivity of surface
electromyography as a diagnostic gait analysis tool. Use of these
normalization methods would, therefore, also increase the effect
size and hence the power of statistical comparisons between
groups in relation to the un-normalized EMG or output from other
methods. In doing so, electromyographers need to be aware that
these methods remove the true biological variation within a group
and therefore improve its homogeneity (Allison et al., 1993;
Knutson et al., 1994). Contrary to the thoughts of Yang and Winter
(1984), this may not be a desired consequence for all electromyo-
graphical research. However, all other normalization methods fea-
tured in this review also reduce inter-individual variability in
relation to the un-normalized EMGs; albeit to a lesser extent than
the MeanTask and PeakTask methods. Thus, at present, improved
group homogeneity is a consequence of normalization, whether
it is desired or not. As a consequence of improved homogeneity,
normalized EMGs should be able to detect changes in task to the
same or greater extent that un-normalized EMGs, as predicted by
Yang and Winter (1984). Whilst generally research has shown this
to be the case (e.g. Allison et al., 1993, 1998), more work is needed
to determine which methods offer the greatest sensitivity.
A fundamental question arises that does not appear to have
been debated in the literature, which is whether the MeanTask
and PeakTask methods can be used to compare EMGs from different
trials, muscles or individuals. Unlike the other normalization
methods reviewed, the denominator of these two methods is ob-
tained during the task under investigation. Should the task EMG al-
ter, for example, between trials or days due to modifications in
technique between occurrences of the task, then this would be re-
flected in the denominator (i.e., the peak or mean EMG) as well as
the numerator. Moreover, the contribution of one muscle to the
task could be relatively consistent between trials or days, whereas
the contribution of another muscle could be very different. The re-
sult being that the PeakTask and MeanTask methods may not be able
to detect alterations in the magnitude or patterning of EMGs be-
tween trials, muscles or individuals. Whereas the EMG from a sep-
arate, standardised contraction of individual muscles or muscle
groups, as used in other normalization methods, would also suffer
from trial to trial and day to day variability, this limitation should
not exist for such contractions as the same technique would be
encouraged to be adhered to on different occasions. Thus, arguably,
the MeanTask and PeakTask methods should not be used to compare
EMGs between different trials, muscles or individuals.
Providing that standardised reference contractions are per-
formed in the same manner on different occasions and that they
produce reliable EMGs, then valid comparisons can be made be-
tween normalized EMGs. Early research (Yang and Winter, 1983)
warned against using the Isometric-arbMVC method due to reduced
reliability of EMGs from isometric MVCs in relation to those from
submaximal voluntary isometric contractions. However, more re-
cently the Isometric-arbMVC method has been shown to result in
normalized EMGs that are as reliable as or are more reliable than
those from the Dynamic-specMVC (Rouffet and Hautier, 2008), Isoki-
netic-specMVC (Burden et al., 2003) and Isometric-subMVC (Lehman,
2002) methods. The latter finding is corroborated by excellent reli-
ability of EMGs for both isometric MVCs and submaximal volun-
tary isometric contractions (Burnett et al., 2007; Dankaerts et al.,
2004; Netto and Burnett, 2006; Norcross et al., 2010). Of course,
if participants are unable to elicit maximal contractions because
of discomfort through illness or injury, then comparisons can only
be made through use of methods that involve submaximal contrac-
tions (e.g. the Isometric-subMVC and Dynamic-subMVC methods).
However, if individuals are able to attempt to perform maximal
contractions, use of the Isometric-arbMVC, Isometric-specMVC, Isoki-
netic-specMVC or Dynamic-specMVC are also designed inherently to
inform the electromyographer of how active the muscle is during
the task in relation to its maximal potential activity.
Should EMGs from MVCs be used to normalize task EMGs,
uncertainly still exists as to whether the MVCs need to be per-
formed with the same contraction mode and muscle or joint kine-
matics that occur during the task (Burden and Bartlett, 1999;
Burden et al., 2003). The majority of research that has compared
EMGs from isometric MVCs performed at different joint angles
(Kasprisin and Grabiner, 1998; Leedham and Dowling, 1995) has
reported that angle has little effect on maximal EMG. Thus, con-
trary to the conclusions made by Mirka (1991), more recent re-
search suggests that the Isometric-specMVC method will produce a
similar output to the Isometric-arbMVC method.
Greater debate exists in the literature as to the effect of contrac-
tion mode and muscle/joint kinematics on muscle activity during
maximal isokinetic contractions. In agreement with the findings
of Burden and Bartlett (1999) the maximal EMG-angle and EMG-
angular velocity relationships have generally been shown to be
uniform across joint angle and angular velocities for the biceps bra-
chii (Komi, 1973, 1974; Komi and Buskirk, 1972; Okada and Saitou,
1998; Smith et al., 1998). However, both uniform and non-uniform
relationships have been reported for the quadriceps (Amiridis
et al., 1996; Bobbert and Harlaar, 1992; Cramer et al., 2000,
2002; Ghori et al., 1995; Rothstein et al., 1983; Seger and Thor-
stensson, 1994; Westing et al., 1991). This makes the contrasting
recommendations made by Kellis and Baltzopoulos (1996) and
Burden et al. (2003) difficult to evaluate, and prompts the need
for more research into this area. The numerous amount of isokinet-
ic MVCs that need to be performed to enable normalization by the
Isokinetic-specMVC method can be both time consuming and ardu-
ous. Thus, until it has been proven that mode of contraction and
muscle/joint kinematics affect EMG-angle and angular velocity
relationships, use of the Isokinetic-specMVC method in preference
to the Isometric-arbMVC method is not justified.
The only study that has compared the Isometric-arbMVC and
Dynamic-specMVC methods (Rouffet and Hautier, 2008) found sta-
tistically significant, although small, differences between the
magnitude of the outputs of the two methods, with no consis-
tency in the direction of the disparity between muscles. Simi-
larly, research that has compared EMGs from maximal
isometric and dynamic contractions (Ball and Scurr, 2010; Hun-
ter et al., 2002) has not agreed on which form of contraction re-
sults in the greatest muscle activity. Neither method suffers from
the same limitations as the Isokinetic-specMVC method, of addi-
tional time and effort required, and both exhibit similar reliabil-
ity (Rouffet and Hautier, 2008). However, similar to earlier
criticisms of the PeakTask and MeanTask methods, activities such
as maximal sprinting, jumping and cycling may not maximally
activate all muscles of interest. Thus, if a single dynamic activity
is used to produce denominators for the Dynamic-specMVC meth-
od in numerous muscles these will likely represent different lev-
els of activation for each muscle, as shown by Rouffet and
Hautier (2008). As such, the output of this method may not be
comparable for different muscles. Despite this, Rouffet and Hau-
tier proposed that the Dynamic-specMVC method should be used
in preference to the Isometric-arbMVC method because the
denominator EMGs are obtained at comparable joint angles
and/or muscle lengths to the task EMGs. As stated earlier in this
section, maximal EMGs may not be affected by joint or muscle
kinematics, and more research is needed in this area before
the Dynamic-specMVC method is more widely recommended.
A criticism that has been, and will likely continue to be, aimed
at normalization methods that use MVCs to produce the denomi-
nator EMG, is whether such contractions are truly maximal. Find-
ings that no one method produces a greater output than another
(Barr et al., 2001; Burden and Bartlett, 1999; Burden et al., 2003;
 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
Hsu et al., 2006) could be interpreted that such contractions are
maximal. Alternatively, research that shows alterations in muscle
activity from isometric MVCs that are performed with different
limb positions or in different planes of motion (Ekstrom et al.,
2005; Kelly et al., 1996; Ng et al., 2002; Vera-Garcia et al., 2010)
suggests that they are not. No study that has compared normaliza-
tion methods has tested this assumption using, for example, the
twitch interpolation technique. Indeed, Araujo et al. (2000) sug-
gested that EMGs should be normalized using the peak amplitude
of the M-wave, if such a technique is available for use. Using twitch
interpolation, Allen et al. (1995, 1998) showed that the elbow flex-
ors could be maximally activated, although this was more likely in
some individuals than others. Alternatively, Roos et al. (1999) and
Suter et al. (1996) suggested that the knee extensors could not
quite be maximally activated during isometric MVCs. As the twitch
interpolation technique can cause discomfort for participants and
associated equipment may not be available, it is unlikely that use
of the peak M-wave as the denominator in a new normalization
method will become widespread.
Whilst it is still unclear as to the precise effects of exercise
mode and joint/muscle kinematics on EMGs from MVCs, the effect
of other factors is generally agreed on. Personal observations agree
with the normalization guidelines of the JEK, which warn that
without preliminary training MVC forces or torques could be as
much as 20–40% less than that obtained after practice. Burnett
et al. (2007) noted that the reliability of EMGs from submaximal
isometric contractions was improved by visual feedback. The gen-
erally positive effects of both verbal and visual feedback on the
peak torque from MVCs have also been well documented, recently
by Campenella et al. (2000). Finally, the way in which MVCs are
elicited has also been reported to influence both muscle activity
and peak torque. Bemben et al. (1990) and Enoka and Fuglevand
(1993) noted significantly greater hand grip and finger abduction
force, respectively, when participants were instructed to reach
peak force as rapidly as possible, as opposed to gradually, during
isometric MVCs. Muscle activity was also found by Koh et al.
(1993) to be slightly greater when force was generated rapidly
rather than gradually during isometric MVCs. Thus, those that
use MVCs in the normalization process should strive to ensure that
their participants produce EMGs that are as close to maximal as
possible and, as required by contributors to the JEK, report how
this has been achieved.
5. Recommendations
One of the fundamental aims of normalizing EMGs is to be able
to compare them between trials that require reapplication of elec-
trodes, muscles, and/or individuals, as well as different studies.
Arguably, due to the nature of their denominator, methods that
use the EMG from the task under investigation to normalize EMGs
from that task (i.e., the MeanTask and PeakTask methods) should not
be used to make such comparisons. Undoubtedly though, these
methods should be used if the sole aim of the electromyographer
is to reduce inter-individual variability in relation to that of the
un-normalized EMG.
Contrary to earlier concerns about the poor reliability of EMGs
from isometric MVCs as compared to those from submaximal iso-
metric contractions, more recent research suggests that use of
either the Isometric-subMVC or the Isometric-arbMVC methods will
provide outputs that have good reliability.
There is no strong evidence at present to suggest that the Iso-
metric-specMVC or Isokinetic-specMVC methods need to be used in-
stead of the Isometric-arbMVC method. This is particularly
pertinent due to the time consuming and arduous nature of meth-
ods that use EMGs from multiple MVCs at a range of joint kinemat-
ics as their denominators.
1033
As recently proposed, the Dynamic-specMVC method could be
used as an alternative to the Isometric-arbMVC method. However,
it should only be used if the electromyographer is confident that
the task used to elicit the dynamic MVC will activate all of the mus-
cles under investigation to the same, ideally maximal, level.
The Isometric-arbMVC method and the Dynamic-specMVC method
aim to provide information on how active a muscle is in relation
to its maximal activation capacity in addition to facilitating com-
parisons between EMGs. As such these, and other methods that
use EMGs from MVCs as the denominator in their normalization
equation, have an inherent advantage over those that do not. How-
ever, the success with which such methods are able to achieve this
is dependent on many factors, none more so than the techniques
used by investigators to obtain meaningful MVCs from their
participants.
References
Allen GM, Gandevia SC, McKenzie DK. Reliability of measurements of muscle
strength and voluntary activation using twitch interpolation. Muscle Nerve
1995;18:593–600.
Allen GM, McKenzie DK, Gandevia SC. Twitch interpolation of the elbow flexor
muscles at high forces. Muscle Nerve 1998;21:318–28.
Allison GT, Marshall RN, Singer KP. EMG signal amplitude normalization technique
in stretch-shortening cycle movements. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
1993;3:236–44.
Allison GT, Godfrey P, Robinson G. EMG signal amplitude assessment during
abdominal bracing and hollowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1998;8:51–7.
Amiridis IG, Martin A, Morlon B, Martin L, Cometti G, Pousson M, et al. Co-activation
and tension regulating phenomena during isokinetic knee extension in
sedentary and highly skilled humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 1996;73:149–56.
Araujo RC, Duarte M, Amadio AC. On the inter- and intra-subject variability of the
electromyographic signal in isometric contractions. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol 2000;40:225–9.
Ball N, Scurr J. An assessment of the reliability and standardisation of tests used to
elicit reference muscular actions for electromyographical normalisation. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010;20:81–8.
Balogh I, Hansson G-A, Ohlsson K, Stromberg U, Skerfving S. Interindividual
variation of physical load in a work task. Scand J Work Environ Health
1999;25:57–66.
Bao S, Mathiasson SE, Winkel J. Normalizing upper trapezius EMG amplitude:
comparison of different procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1995;5:251–7.
Barr AE, Goldsheyder D, Özkaya N, Nordin M. Testing apparatus and experimental
procedure for position specific normalization of electromyographic measurements
of dital upper extremity musculature. Clin Biomech 2001;16:576–85.
Bemben MG, Clasey JL, Massey BH. The effect of the rate of muscle contraction on
the force–time curve parameters of male and female subjects. Res Q Exerc Sport
1990;61:96–9.
Benoit DL, Lamontagne M, Cerulli G, Liti A. The clinical significance of
electromyography normalisation techniques in subjects with anterior cruciate
ligament injury during treadmill walking. Gait Posture 2003;18:56–63.
Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two
measures of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.
Bobbert MF, Harlaar J. Evaluation of moment–angle curves in isokinetic knee
extension. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992;25:251–9.
Bolgla LA, Uhl TL. Reliability of electromyographic normalization methods for
evaluating of the hip musculature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2007;17:102–11.
Burden AM. Surface electromyography. In: Payton CJ, Bartlett RM, editors.
Biomechanical evaluation of movement in sport and exercise. London:
Routledge; 2008. p. 77–102.
Burden AM, Bartlett RM. Normalisation of EMG amplitude: an evaluation and
comparison of old and new methods. Med Eng Phys 1999;21:247–57.
Burden AM, Trew M, Baltzopoulos V. Normalisation of gait EMGs: a re-examination.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13:519–32.
Burnett A, Green J, Netto K, Rodrigues J. Examination of EMG normalisation
methods for the study of the posterior and posterolateral neck muscles in
healthy controls. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2007;17:635–41.
Campenella B, Mattacola CG, Kimura IF. Effect of visual feedback and verbal
encouragement on concentric quadriceps and hamstrings peak torque of males
and females. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2000;8:1–6.
Chapman AR, Vicenzino B, Blanch P, Knox JJ, Hodges PW. Intramuscular fine-wire
electromyography during cycling: repeatability, normalisation and a
comparison to surface electromyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
2010;20:108–17.
Clarys JP. Electromyography in sports and occupational settings: an update of its
limits and possibilities. Ergonomics 2000;43:1750–62.
Clarys JP, Cabri J. Electromyography and the study of sports movements: a review. J
Sports Sci 1993;11:379–448.
Cram JR, Kasman GS. Introduction to surface electromyography. Gaithersburg,
Maryland, MD: ASPEN; 1998.
1034 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Ebersole KT, Perry SR, Bull AJ.
Mechanomyographic amplitude and mean power output during maximal,
concentric, isokinetic muscle actions. Muscle Nerve 2000;23:1826–31.
Cramer JT, Housh TJ, Weir JP, Johnson GO, Ebersole KT, Perry SR, et al. Power output,
mechanomyographic, and electromyographic responses to maximal, concentric,
isokinetic muscle actions in men and women. J Strength Cond Res
2002;16:399–408.
Dankaerts W, O’Sullivan PB, Burnett AF, Straker LM, Danneels LA. Reliability of EMG
measurements for trunk muscles during maximal and sub-maximal voluntary
isometric contractions in healthy controls and CLBP patients. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol 2004;14:333–42.
De Luca C. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech
1997;13:135–63.
Eberhart HD, Inman VT, Bresler B. The principal elements in human locomotion. In:
Klopsteg PE, Wilson PD, editors. Human limbs and their substitutes. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1954. p. 437–71.
Ekstrom RA, Soderberg GL, Donatelli RA. Normalization procedures using maximum
voluntary isometric contractions for the serratus anterior and trapezius muscles
during surface EMG analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2005;15:418–28.
Enoka RM, Fuglevand AJ. Neuromuscular basis of the maximum voluntary force
capacity of muscle. In: Grabiner MD, editor. Current issues in
biomechanics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1993. p. 215–35.
Fernández-Pena E, Lucertini F, Ditroilo M. A maximal isokinetic pedalling exercise
for EMG normalization in cycling. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009;19:e162–70.
Finucane SDG, Rafeei T, Kues J, Lamb RL, Mayhew TP. Reproducibility of
electromyographic recordings of submaximal concentric and eccentric muscle
contractions in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998;109:
290–6.
Ghori GMU, Donne B, Luckwill RG. Relationship between torque and EMG activity of
a knee extensor muscle during isokinetic concentric and eccentric actions. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 1995;5:109–15.
Hansson G-A, Nordander C, Asterland P, Ohlsson K, Stromberg U, Skerfving S, et al.
Sensitivity of trapezius electromyography to differences between work tasks –
influence of gap definition and normalisation methods. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
2000;10:103–15.
Hershler C, Milner M. An optimality criterion for processing electromyographic
(EMG) signals relating to human locomotion. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng
1978;25:413–20.
Hsu W-L, Krishnamoorthy V, Scholz JP. An alternative test of electromyographic
normalization in patients. Muscle Nerve 2006;33:232–41.
Hunter AM, St. Clair Gibson A, Lambert M, Noakes TD. Electromyographic (EMG)
normalization method for cycle fatigue protocols. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2002;34:857–61.
Jobe FW, Radovich D, Tibone JE, Perry J. An EMG analysis of the shoulder in pitching:
a second report. Am J Sports Med 1984;12:218–20.
Kamen G, Gabriel D. Essentials of electromyography. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2010.
Kashigawa K, Tanaka M, Kawazoe T, Furuichi K, Takada H. Effect of amplitude
normalization on surface EMG linear envelopes of masticatory muscles during
gum chewing. J Osaka Dent Univ 1995;29:19–28.
Kasprisin JE, Grabiner MD. EMG variability during maximal voluntary isometric and
anisometric contractions is reduced using spatial averaging. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol 1998;8:45–50.
Kellis E, Baltzopoulos V. The effects of normalization method on antagonistic
activity patterns during eccentric and concentric isokinetic knee extension and
flexion. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1996;6:235–45.
Kelly BT, Kadrmas WR, Kirkendall DT, Speer KP. Optimal normalization tests for
shoulder muscle activation: an electromyographic study. J Orthop Res
1996;14:647–53.
Knudson DV, Johnston D. Comparison of EMG normalization methods in a sit-to-
stand movement. J Hum Movement Stud 1993;25:39–50.
Knutson LM, Soderberg GL, Ballantyne BT, Clarke WR. A study of various
normalization procedures for within day electromyographic data. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 1994;4:47–59.
Knutson LM, Soderberg GL. EMG: use and interpretation in gait. In: Craik RL, Oatis
CA, editors. Gait analysis: theory and application. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1995.
Koh TJ, Grabiner MD, Clough CA. Bilateral deficit is larger for step than for ramp
isometric contractions. J Appl Physiol 1993;74:1200–5.
Komi PV. Relationship between muscle tension, EMG and velocity of contraction
under concentric and eccentric work. In: Desmedt JE, editor. New developments
in electromyography and clinical neurophysiology. Basel: Karger; 1973. p.
596–606.
Komi PV. Mechanical and electrical behaviour of human muscle during maximal
concentric and eccentric contractions. In: Nelson RC, Morehouse CA, editors.
Biomechanics IV. London: Macmillan; 1974. p. 428–33.
Komi PV, Buskirk ER. Effect of eccentric and concentric muscle conditioning on
tension and electrical activity of human muscle. Ergonomics 1972;15:417–34.
Kumar S. Electromyography in ergonomics. In: Kumar S, Mital A, editors.
Electromyography in ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 1–50.
Leedham JS, Dowling JJ. Force–length, torque–angle and EMG–joint angle
relationships of the human in vivo biceps brachii. Eur J Appl Physiol
1995;70:421–6.
Lehman GJ. Clinical considerations in the use of surface electromyography: three
experimental studies. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2002;25:293–9.
Lehman GJ, McGill SM. The importance of normalization in the interpretation of
surface electromyography: a proof of principle. J Manipulative Physiol Ther
1999;22:444–6.
Marras WS, Davis KG. A non-MVC EMG normalization technique for the trunk
musculature. Part 1: Method development. J Electromyogr Kinesiol
2001;11:1–9.
Marras WS, Davis KG, Maronitis AB. A non-MVC EMG normalization technique for
the trunk musculature. Part 2: Validation and use to predict spinal loads. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 2001;11:11–8.
Mathiassen SE, Winkel J, Hagg GM. Normalization of surface EMG amplitude from
the upper trapezius muscle in ergonomic studies – a review. J Electromyogr
Kinesiol 1995;5:197–226.
McLean L, Chislett M, Keith M, Murphy M, Walton P. The effect of head position,
electrode site, movement and smoothing window in the determination of a
reliable maximum voluntary activation of the upper trapezius muscle. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13:169–80.
Merletti R, Wallinga W, Hermens HJ, Freriks B. Guidelines for reporting SEMG data. In:
Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C,
Hägg G, editors. European recommendations for surface electromyography:
results of the SENIAM project. Enschede: Roessingh Research and Development;
1999. p. 103–5.
Milerad E, Ericson MO, Nisell R, Kilbom A. An electromyographic study of dental
work. Ergonomics 1991;34:953–62.
Mirka GA. The quantification of EMG normalization error. Ergonomics
1991;34:343–52.
Morris AD, Kemp GJ, Lees A, Frostick SP. A study of the reproducibility of three
different normalisation methods in intramuscular dual fine wire
electromyography of the shoulder. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1998;8:317–22.
Netto KJ, Burnett AF. Reliability of normalisation methods for EMG analysis of neck
muscles. Work 2006;26:123–30.
Ng JK-F, Kippers V, Parnianpour M, Richardson CA. EMG activity normalization for
trunk muscles in subjects with and without back pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2002;34:1082–6.
Nieminen H, Takala E-P, Viikari-Juntura E. Normalization of electromyogram in the
neck–shoulder region. Eur J Appl Physiol 1993;67:199–207.
Nishijima Y, Kato T, Yoshizawa M, Miyashita M, Iida H. Application of the segment
weight dynamic movement method to the normalization of gait EMG
amplitude. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010;20:550–7.
Norcross MF, Blackburn JT, Goerger BM. Reliability and interpretation of single leg
stance and maximum voluntary isometric contraction methods of
electromyography normalization. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010;20:420–5.
Okada M, Saitou K. Effects of the mode and velocity of isokinetic contractions on the
surface EMG parameters. In: Arsenault AB, McKinley P, McFadyen B, editors.
Proceedings of the 12th congress of the international society of
electrophysiology and kinesiology, Montreal, Canada; 1998. p. 86–7.
Perry J. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK; 1992.
Robertson DGE. Electromyographical kinesiology. In: Robertson DGE, Caldwell GE,
Hamill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN, editors. Research methods in
biomechanics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004. p. 163–82.
Roos MR, Rice CL, Connelly DM, Vanervoot AA. Quadriceps muscle strength,
contractile properties, and motor unit firing rates in young and old men. Muscle
Nerve 1999;22:1094–103.
Rothstein JM, Delitto A, Sinacore DR, Rose SJ. Electromyographic, peak torque, and
power relationships during isokinetic movement. Phys Ther 1983;63:926–33.
Rouffet DM, Hautier CA. EMG normalization to study muscle activation in cycling. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 2008;18:866–78.
Seger JY, Thorstensson A. Muscle strength and myoelectric activity in prepubertal
and adult males and females. Eur J Appl Physiol 1994;69:81–7.
Shiavi R, Bourne J, Holland A. Automated extraction of activity features in linear
envelopes of locomotor electromyographic patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng
1986;33:594–600.
Shiavi R, Bugle HJ, Limbird T. Electromyographic gait assessment. Part 1: Adult EMG
profiles and walking speed. J Rehabil Res Dev 1987;24:13–23.
Smith DB, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Evetovich TK, Ebersole KT, Perry SR.
Mechanomyographic and electromyographic responses to eccentric and
concentric to isokinetic muscle actions of the biceps brachii. Muscle Nerve
1998;21:1438–44.
Suter E, Herzog W, Huber A. Extent of motor unit activation in the quadriceps
muscles of healthy subjects. Muscle Nerve 1996;19:1046–8.
Vera-Garcia FJ, Moreside JM, McGill SM. MVC techniques to normalize trunk muscle
EMG in healthy women. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010;20:10–6.
Westing SH, Cresswell AG, Thorstensson A. Muscle activation during maximal
voluntary eccentric and concentric knee extension. Eur J Appl Physiol
1991;62:194–208.
Winter D. EMG interpretation. In: Kumar S, Mital A, editors. Electromyography in
ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 109–25.
Yang JF, Winter DA. Electromyography reliability in maximal and submaximal
isometric contractions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983;64:417–20.
Yang JF, Winter DA. Electromyographic amplitude normalization methods:
improving their sensitivity as diagnostic tools in gait analysis. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 1984;65:517–21.
Zakaria D, Kramer JF, Harburn KL. Reliability of non-normalized and normalized
integrated EMG during maximal isometric contractions in females. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 1996;6:129–35.
 A. Burden / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 20 (2010) 1023–1035 1035

Adrian Burden received his PhD from the University

of Brighton in 2002. After holding lecturing positions
at Brunel University and Brighton in the 1990s he
joined Manchester Metropolitan University in 2002.
He is currently a Principal Lecturer in Biomechanics
in the Department of Exercise and Sport Science, and
is the Department’s Learning and Teaching Co-ordi-
nator. He regularly holds workshops on surface
electromyography on behalf of the British Associa-
tion of Sport and Exercise Sciences, and is a member
of the editorial board of the Journal of Electromyog-
raphy and Kinesiology. His research interests lie in
the application of electromyography in clinical, sport
and exercise settings.