Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

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

Peak and average rectified EMG measures: Which method of data reduction
should be used for assessing core training exercises? q
A.E. Hibbs a,*, K.G. Thompson b, D.N. French b, D. Hodgson a, I.R. Spears a
a
University of Teesside, UK
b
Northumbria University, Ellison Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 8ST, UK

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

Article history: Core strengthening and stability exercises are fundamental for any conditioning training program.
Received 1 November 2009 Although surface electromyography (sEMG) is used to quantify muscle activity there is a lack of research
Received in revised form 7 June 2010 using this method to investigate the core musculature and core stability. Two types of data reduction are
Accepted 7 June 2010
commonly used for sEMG; peak and average rectified EMG methods. Peak EMG has been infrequently
reported in the literature with regard to the assessment of core training while even fewer studies have
incorporated average rectified EMG data (ARV). The aim of the study was to establish the repeatability
Keywords:
EMG
of peak and average rectified EMG data during core training exercises and their interrelationship.
ARV EMG Ten male highly trained athletes (inter-subject repeatability group; age, 18 ± 1.2 years; height,
MVIC 176.5 ± 3.2 cm; body mass, 71 ± 4.5 kg) and one female highly trained athlete (intra-subject repeatability
Core stability group; age; 27 years old; height; 180 cm; weight; 53 kg) performed five maximal voluntary isometric
Core strength contractions (MVIC) and five core exercises, chosen to represent a range of movement and muscle recruit-
ment patterns. Peak EMG and ARV EMG were calculated for eight core muscles (rectus abdominis, RA;
external oblique, EO; internal oblique, IO; multifidis, MF; latissimus dorsi, LD; longissimus, LG; gluteus
maximus, GM; rectus femoris, RF) using sEMG. Average coefficient of variation (CV%) for peak EMG across
all the exercises and muscles was 45%. This is in comparison to 35% for the ARV method, which was found
to be a significant difference (P < 0.05), therefore implying that the ARV method is the more reliable mea-
sure for these types of exercise. Analysis of the inter-subject and intra-subject CV% values suggest that
these exercises and muscles are sufficiently repeatable using sEMG. Five muscles were highly correlated
(R > 0.70; RA, EO, MF, GM, LG) between peak and ARV EMG suggesting, that for these core muscles, the
two methods provide a similar evaluation of muscle activity. However, for other muscles (IO, RF, LD)
the relationship was found to range from poor to moderate (R = 0.10–0.70). The relationship between
peak and ARV EMG was also affected by exercise type. Dynamic low and high-threshold exercises and
asymmetrical low-threshold exercises had a moderate correlation between the variables (R = 0.74–
0.81), while the static exercise showed a poor correlation (R = 0.46). It can be concluded that there are
similarities between the two EMG variables, however due to the effect of type of exercise and muscle
on the EMG data, both methods should be included in any future EMG study on the core musculature
and core stability exercises.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The core refers to the musculature of the shoulder stabilisers,
trunk and the upper leg muscles (Lehman, 2006; McGill, 2002;
Elphinston, 2004; Santana, 2003). Almost all athletic movements
q
Declaration by authors: The following paper has not been previously published
or submitted for consideration in any other journal. All of the above authors
acknowledge that they have read, and approved of, the content of the manuscript as
submitted.
* Corresponding author. Address: University of Teesside, 36 Blake Walk, Gates-
head NE8 3NW, UK. Tel.: +44 1914779898.
E-mail address: angelahibbs1@yahoo.co.uk (A.E. Hibbs).
involve the core and consequently, core exercises are incorporated
into most sports training programs. Core training uses a combina-
tion of dynamic and static exercises, some of which are asymmet-
rical (e.g. birddog (McGill, 1999) resulting in alternating demands
on the left and right side of the body) and some are performed
on unstable surfaces and with a small base of support (Posner-
Mayer, 1995; Cosio-Lima et al., 2003; Check, 1999). The resulting
muscle activity occurs not only to move the limbs/objects into
the desired position but also to maintain body posture (McGill,
1999). Regularly performing these types of exercises is believed
to result in improvements to core stability and core strength due
to improvements in proprioception, muscle recruitment and mus-
cular/body control (Stanton et al., 2004; Trappe and Pearson, 1994;

1050-6411/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.06.001
 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111
Hubley-Kozey and Vezina, 2002; Hasegawa, 2004; Hakkinen et al.,
2001). This in turn may lead to an improvement in overall sporting
performance by, for example, enhancing force transfer through the
body (McGill, 1999). Surface electromyography (sEMG) has been
used to quantify muscle activity during dynamic and static body
movements during core musculature training (Axler and McGill,
1997; McGill, 2001). Such data if proven to be reliable would be vi-
tal to coaches/athletes and would enable them to identify exercises
which can maximise training adaptations and hence improve core
stability and/or core strength. Despite this, the biomechanics of
core exercises are not fully understood (Akuthota and Nadler,
2004).
EMG data processing is complex and the muscle activity can be
summarised using different output variables (De Luca, 1997). Two
of the more common summary measures are peak EMG and Aver-
age Rectified Variable EMG (ARV EMG). The calculation of both
variables involves normalising the EMG data which involves the
subject performing a preliminary restrained exercise (i.e. isokinet-
ic, isometric and isotonic exercises) that elicits an assumed maxi-
mal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of a given muscle
(Ekstorm et al., 2005). The peak EMG variable can then be ex-
pressed as a percentage of this MVIC (McGill, 1999; Axler and
McGill, 1997; Vezina and Hubley-Kozey, 2000; Arokoski et al.,
1999). The peak EMG variable gives a measure of the maximal
activity of the given muscle during the exercise and has been used
to quantify muscle activity during core exercises (Axler and McGill,
1997). In contrast, the ARV EMG is a measure of the area under the
normalised EMG time-series curve divided by the time period
(Hatton et al., 2008; Edwards et al., 2008; Merletti, 1999) (Fig. 1).
This variable will include an indication of any submaximal activity
which may occur during the stabilisation of the body (Comerford,
2007) particularly when performing the exercise on an unstable
surface or with a small base of support as occurs during many rou-
tine core exercises. Previous research on the core muscle activa-
tions patterns (Hildenbrand and Noble, 2004; Warden et al.,
1999) has found that by using different EMG data reduction proce-
Fig. 1. Diagram of the ARV EMG and Peak EMG processing method. Integral, repetition duration and peak values for the processed EMG were taken between the onset and
offset points. Also shown is the method of establishing the onset and offset values for each repetition. (A) Baseline data to calculate onset threshold and (B) baseline data to
calculate offset threshold.
103
dures, differences in the subsequent level of muscular activity dur-
ing core stability exercises are reported. For example, Hildenbrand
and Noble (2004) used mean integrated EMG activity by calculat-
ing the area under the rectified EMG curve and dividing this by
the elapsed time for 5 repetitions. Meanwhile, Warden et al.
(1999) used peak EMG values for the same muscles during the
same sit up techniques by identifying the greatest EMG value dur-
ing the exercise repetitions. Subsequently the two studies reported
differing levels of EMG activity for the same muscles and con-
cluded that this could have been due to the different data reduc-
tion procedures. This highlights the potential importance of
measuring more than one EMG processing method.
In addition to functional relevance another consideration when
choosing a summary measure for EMG is the variability of the data
both within and between subjects (De Luca, 1997, 1993; Burdon,
2006; Basmajian and De Luca, 1985). Factors such as cross talk
(Farina et al., 2004; Winter et al., 1994) and the quasi-random nat-
ure of the EMG signal due to differing neural recruitment patterns
makes the signal susceptible to large variations between measure-
ments (De Luca, 1997). While it has been found that by following
careful data collection procedures, reliable sEMG data can be ob-
tained (Komi and Buskirk, 1970; Kadaba et al., 1985; Giroux and
Lamontagne, 1990; Finni et al., 2007; Finucane et al., 1998; Golho-
fer et al., 1990; Goodwin et al., 1999), the variability in the mea-
sures can be high (10–30%) (Jackson et al., 2008). Furthermore,
although no published data on the coefficients of variation (CV)
for the core musculature exists, CV values of 30–50% from ultra-
sound studies have been reported (Mannion et al., 2008). It is
therefore expected that variability is a likely problem for assessing
core musculature which could obscure interpretation of differing
demands and muscle roles during core exercises.
The aims of this study are twofold. The first aim of the study is
to quantify the variability of peak and ARV EMG data during core
training exercises and the second is to establish which method
may be the more appropriate for the assessment of muscular activ-
ity during core stability and core strength exercises.
104 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Eleven athletes (10 male, age, 18 ± 1.02 years; height, 177 ±
1.5 cm; body mass, 76 ± 2.1 kg; one female, age, 18 ± 1.2 years;
height, 175.5 ± 1.1 cm; body mass, 71 ± 1.8 kg) volunteered to par-
ticipate in the study. The 10 male subjects performed the protocol
on a single day. The EMG electrodes were positioned on the muscle
landmarks (see below) at the beginning of the day and remained in
position until the end of the day’s data collection. A single subject
(female, age; 27 years old; height; 180 cm; weight; 53 kg) repeated
the protocol on three separate days. In this case the electrode land-
mark was marked with a permanent marker to ensure the same
placement on the following days. Experimental test protocols were
approved by the Teesside University Ethical Committee. All sub-
jects were highly trained and experienced in performing core sta-
bility and strength exercises thus minimising the potential for any
learning effects. The subjects were in full health and did not report
any feelings of pain when performing the tests.
2.2. Data collection
2.2.1. Equipment set-up
EMG signals were recorded from 8 right-sided core muscles
(Table 1). The reference electrode was placed on the right iliac
crest. Muscles were selected on the basis that they are important
to core stability and core strength (Elphinston, 2004; Hubley-Ko-
zey and Vezina, 2002; Hakkinen et al., 2001; McGill et al., 2003;
McGill, 1991; Marshall and Murphy, 2003; Hubley-Kozey and
Vezina, 2002; Hodges et al., 1999; Gardner-Morse et al., 1995;
Faries and Greenwood, 2007). Each landmark was identified using
anatomical landmarks by a qualified physiotherapist and shaved
and cleaned using alcoholic wipes. All electrodes were securely
taped to the skin and the data was subsequently high pass filtered
at 20 Hz to reduce any movement artefacts. EMG data was
collected (sampling rate 1000 Hz) using Delsys Wireless Myomon-
itor III device with surface electrodes (Delsys DE-2.3 Single
Differential Surface Electrode; inter-electrode distance 1 cm; bar
type electrode, contact dimensions 10  1 mm, 99.9% Ag; Gain
1000; Bandwidth 20–450 Hz; common mode rejection ratio of
92 dB, pre-amplifier gain 1000 V/V ±1%, input impedance of
>1015 X//0.2 pf) and saved using Delsys EMGWorks Acquisition
software.
2.2.2. Experimental procedure
Due to the athletes being familiar with performing core exer-
cises, the learning effects of performing these exercises are ex-
pected to be low given the highly trained nature of the sample.
Any learning effect was further minimised by introducing the exer-
cises one week prior to data collection. Subjects were provided
with a written explanation of each exercise, shown a demonstra-
tion and practised each MVIC and core exercises at the required
repetition rate. On the day of testing sEMG data was first recorded
with the muscles fully relaxed (subject lay prone on the floor) to
define the baseline for each muscle channel.
2.2.3. Exercise details
2.2.3.1. Normalisation exercises. The choice of MVIC exercise does
result in some variability between measurements (Ekstorm et al.,
2005; Enoka and Fuglevand, 1993). However, previous research
has established that the use of numerous static MVIC exercises
does result in the least variability of data and that this method is
suitable for the normalisation process of EMG data (Bolgla and
Uhl, 2005; Yang and Winter, 1984). Previous studies (Ekstorm
Table 1
Eight core muscles were analysed using sEMG; abbreviations and placements.
Locations based on previous research. Cram J. Introduction to surface electromyog-
raphy. 2nd ed. Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2008.
Muscle (group) Position of electrode (right side)
Rectus abdominis – Positioned vertically on centre of muscle belly, 5 cm
upper (RA) above umbilicus, 3 cm lateral from midline
External oblique 3 cm above iliac crest, at 45° above the anterior
(EO) superior iliac spine (ASIS) level with the umbilicus
Internal oblique (IO) Positioned horizontally 2 cm inferomedial to the ASIS
Multifidis (MF) Positioned vertically 3 cm lateral to spine, L4–5
spinous process
Longissimus (LG) Positioned vertically 3 cm lateral to spine, L2 region
Gluteus maximus On centre of muscle belly
(GM)
Latissimus dorsi Positioned obliquely, 25° from horizontal in
(LD) inferomedial direction, 4 cm below inferior angle of
scapula
Rectus femoris (RF) Positioned vertically on midline of thigh, midway
between ASIS and proximal patella
et al., 2005; Konrad et al., 2001) have recommended using more
than one MVIC exercise to ensure a maximum activation for a mus-
cle. Accordingly, five maximal voluntary isometric exercises
(MVIC) were performed three times (with one minute rest be-
tween each) for 10 s to ensure a true MVIC from each muscle (de-
tails of each MVIC exercise can be found in Table 2). In order to
minimise the effect of the muscle length–tension relationship on
the resultant EMG output (Urquhart et al., 2005; Howard and Eno-
ka, 1991) the MVIC exercises were performed in a similar body po-
sition to those of the core stability exercises (Table 3). For each
subject, for the resisted exercises, the amount of weight needed
to prevent any body angle movement occurring was established
and then used during the MVIC exercises (this ranged from 20 to
35 kg of free weights). Each MVIC exercise was performed three
times for 10 s with a two minutes rest period between each repe-
tition. Subjects were given verbal encouragement during each
MVC and core exercise to help ensure a maximum and consistent
effort during the EMG data collection period.
2.2.3.2. Core stability and strength exercises. Five core stability and
core strength exercises were performed (Table 3). The exercises
were selected based on previous research that highlights them as
important in developing core stability and core strength (Axler
and McGill, 1997; Akuthota and Nadler, 2004; Faries and Green-
wood, 2007; Hodges, 1999; Jeffreys, 2002; Kibler et al., 2006; Lie-
mohn et al., 2005; McGill, 1998). These included low-threshold
(less demanding, posture related exercises which focus on muscle
recruitment) and high-threshold exercises (greater stress on the
core musculature thus promoting core strength development)
(Comerford, 2007). Some of the exercises are classified twice. For
example the sit-hold-twist with resistance exercise is classified
as both a dynamic high-threshold exercise and an asymmetrical
exercise.
The core exercises were performed continually for a minute and
then repeated with one minute rest between each set. The order of
the exercises was performed in a crossover randomised design for
each subject. The duration and number of repetitions over which
these exercises were performed varied due to the demands of the
exercises (Table 3) but these were subsequently time-normalised
to muscle activity per second to enable direct comparisons be-
tween the exercises. Repetition rates were determined by a certi-
fied UK strength and conditioning coach and monitored during
testing using a stopwatch. Subjects were instructed to perform
controlled, smooth movements in order to minimise the variability
of the EMG signal (Konrad et al., 2001).
 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111 105

Table 2
The MVIC exercises performed (based on Brandon (2006)).

Exercise Muscle targeted Description Repetition rate Duration (s) Diagram

Resisted sit up RA Lie on floor with knees bent to 90°with back in neutral Continuous 10
position, place weight on chest and hold with folded
arms across chest. Subject attempts to perform a sit up.
Weight should be sufficient enough to prevent any
substantial movement of the upper body
Resisted back extension GM, L, MF Using a horizontal extension bench, lie with hips over Continuous 10
edge of bench and feet fixed under bar. Flex hips so head
is near ground. With a weight in arms attempt to extend
the back. The weight should be sufficiently heavy to
prevent substantial upper body movement
Resisted trunk rotation EO, IO In a seated position on the floor with legs straight out in Continuous 10
front and arms across chest. Subject rotates upper body
while external resistance is placed on shoulder to
prevent substantial upper body twisting

Resisted hang LD Hang from a wall bar with arms straight. Facing wall, Continuous 10
secure feet (use external resistance pulling down on
ankles) so no movement upwards can be achieved.
Attempt to pull body upwards using shoulders and arms

Resisted hip flexion RF Subject sits on bench with thighs fixed and knees bent at Continuous 10
80°. Subject attempts extension of knee and flexion of
hip maximally

2.3. Data processing
Raw sEMG signals for both MVIC and the core exercises were
bandpass filtered at 20–450 Hz and analysed using Acknowledge
software program (Biopac Systems Inc., Goleta, CA). A Root Mean
Square (RMS) method with a moving average window of 50 ms
was adopted. To identify the start and end of the repetitions for
the dynamic exercises (for the MVIC and static exercises, the mid-
dle 5 s were used) onset and offset values were calculated using
the equation below (Hatton et al., 2008; Edwards et al., 2008; Di
Fabio, 1987; Hodges and Bui, 1996) (see Fig. 1). The onset of the
repetitions was accepted when the muscle activity exceeded the
mean resting value by more than three standard deviations for
over 30 ms and the cessation of the repetition established when
the activity fell below the mean resting value by more than 3 stan-
dard deviations for over 30 ms (Edwards et al., 2008).
Onset=Offset value ¼ Mean þ ð3  Standard DeviationÞ
Peak and ARV EMG values were obtained for both the MVIC (to
enable normalisation of the EMG signals) and core exercises. Peak
values were established by calculating the peak EMG activity dur-
ing a 5 s period for each of the three MVIC repetitions for each
muscle. ARV EMG values were established by calculating the aver-
age muscle activity per second for each muscle during each MVIC
exercise. These values were used to normalise the EMG data during
the core exercises.
To establish peak and ARV EMG values during the core exer-
cises, three repetitions of each exercise were analysed. The EMG
data was normalised by expressing the peak EMG value as a per-
centage of the peak EMG value for a subject’s highest correspond-
ing MVIC trial and for each muscle. The highest normalised EMG
data value from the three repetitions was then used in all subse-
quent analysis as the peak EMG value. To calculate the ARV EMG,
the sum of the EMG area under the curve was divided by the total
number of data points between the onset and offset times, to give
an ARV in volts for the repetition (Hatton et al., 2008; Edwards
et al., 2008). This was normalised as a percentage of the maximum
EMG activity during the MVIC exercises. An average (mean) value
was obtained from three repetitions of each exercise for each
muscle.
2.4. Statistical analysis
2.4.1. Intra-subject variability derived from a single subject
The within day coefficient of variation (CV) was established
using the intra-subject data. CV measures were used as this calcu-
lation of reliability standardises the standard deviation (SD) to the
mean and so removes the variability of the data due to the magni-
tude of the mean (Reed et al., 2002). As it is proposed that greater
SDs will be seen when greater mean muscle activity during the
core exercises are performed due to the differing techniques used
and the subsequent greater demands placed on the core muscula-
ture resulting in the higher activation levels. The CV was estab-
lished using the equation stated below for each day (day 1 sets
1–3, day 2 sets 4–7, day 3 sets 8–10). The greatest minimum to
maximum CV difference occurring on any of these days was ex-
pressed as an indication of within day variation and the difference
between these values, used as an indication of between day varia-
tion (Yang and Winter, 1983).
CV ¼ ðSD=meanÞ  100
2.4.2. Intra-subject variability derived from multiple subjects
The variability of the summary measures were calculated using
the log-transformed CV (Bamman et al., 1997) for each type of core
exercise to assess the variability of the scores (the normalised EMG
values) as a percentage of their mean for each of the core muscles.
This was then subjected to back-transformation of the RMS error
(Hopkins, 2000) as stated below (Yang and Winter, 1983):
CV ¼ 100  ðOx  1Þ%
(where O = ERMS).
Two-way mixed consistency ICC values (using SPSS version
12.0) were computed on the sEMG data using peak and ARV values
106 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111

Table 3
Description of core exercises (* based on Brandon (2006)).

Exercise Description Repetition rate Duration Diagram

(s)
Side bridge/plank* Lie on one side, ensuring top hip is ‘stacked’ above the bottom hip. Push up Hold for 60 s 60
(static) until there is a straight bodyline through feet, hips and head

Birddog* Hands below shoulders and knees below hips. Position back in neutral, slowly 2 s change sides–3 s 60
(asymmetrical) slide back one leg and slide forward the opposite arm until level with back. hold in position
Ensure back does not extend and shoulders and pelvis do not tilt sideways.
Bring leg and arm back to start position and swap sides

Bent leg curl-up Lie on floor with knees bent to 90°and feet resting on floor. Position back in the 2 s hip flexion (up)–2 s 60
(dynamic low- neutral position and arms folded across chest, raise head, shoulders and upper hip extension (down)
threshold) back off the floor, hold and return to start position

Overhead squat Using wooden stick, place hands shoulder width apart on stick. Raise the bar 2 s hip flexion (down)– 60
(dynamic high- above head and straighten arms. Feet shoulder width apart, squat down as low no hold–2 s hip
threshold) as possible while maintaining balance, keeping bar, head and back vertical. extension (up)
Straighten legs and repeat

Medicine ball, sit- Sit up with knees bent and lean back at 45°. Feet off floor, keeping back in 2 s move from left to 60
hold-twist neutral, using a 4 kg medicine ball, twist waist and shoulders to one side with right and return (4 s
(asymmetrical) ball held out in front of you. Return to forward and repeat to other side total)

from the core exercises. ICC values were calculated using ICC (3, 1)
and the equation below (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979):
BMS  EMS
ICC ð3; 1Þ ¼
BMS þ ðk  1ÞEMS
where BMS, between-subjects mean square; EMS, error mean
square; k is the number of repetitions).
To establish the measurement error between the trials, consec-
utive pairs of trials were examined (trials 1 and 2 and trials 2 and
3). All three trials were then compared to establish total measure-
ment error (CV). If this three trial CV value was below 26% this was
reported, if the value was above 26%, the two trial CV value that
showed the lowest variation was reported. This was adopted be-
cause, based on previous work on the arm (Ekstorm et al., 2005)
and leg muscles (Bamman et al., 1997; Knutson et al., 1994), an
acceptable limit of variation for sEMG to enable further data to
be collected on any muscle or exercise would be a CV value of be-
low 26% and an ICC value of >0.7. These limits were chosen to allow
for the uncontrollable quasi-random nature of the EMG signal but
removes EMG signals that show great variation within subjects due
to for example, difficult electrode placement. These values that
show a large variation between trials would make the identifica-
tion of any significant changes in performance in subsequent anal-
ysis impossible.
The interrelationship between the peak and ARV EMG variables
were analysed by calculating the standard deviations and r values
(Pearsons correlation coefficient) (Atkinson and Nevill, 1998) for
each muscle and exercise type.
3. Results
3.1. Variability of peak and ARV EMG during MVC exercises
Between-trial and between-day variability during the MVC
exercises derived from a single subject are shown in Table 4. CVs
are shown for the muscles in the exercises that elicited a maximum
 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111 107

Table 4
Within-subject CV between day (mean) and within day variation (min and max range) derived from a single subjects (n = 1) during the MVIC exercises. Min = minimum %CV
within a day (3 trials), Max = maximum %CV within a day (3 trials).

MVIC exercise RA EO IO MF LD GM LG RF
Resisted sit up ARV 28 (20–43) 12 (3–50) 89 (10–71) 15 (3–31) 51 (3–61)
Peak 14 (7–19) 15 (9–21) 47 (5–66) 93 (22–70)
Resisted back extension ARV 38 (12–50) 18 (2–23) 12 (6–11) 8 (5–9) 48 (2–23)
Peak 11 (5–11) 35 (4–47) 6 (3–9) 49 (3–23)
Resisted trunk rotation (right) ARV 46 (3–22) 46 (3–22)
Peak 19 (3–9) 57 (7–33)
Resisted trunk rotation (left) ARV
Peak 48 (13–48)
Resisted hang ARV 37 (2–27) 23 (3–7)
Peak 20 (11–21) 31 (0–24) 29 (6–13)
Resisted hip flexion ARV 26 (5–29)
Peak 24 (8–25)

Table 5
Within-subject CV (log-transformed) and 95% confidence levels (in brackets) derived from multiple subjects (n = 10) during the MVIC exercises. Values are shown for muscles in
exercises that elicited a maximum in more than 3 subjects.

MVIC exercise RA EO IO MF LD GM LG RF
Resisted sit up ARV 21 (19–52) 20a (17–36) 19b (18–38) 13b (6–15)
Peak 28a (16–33) 23 (13–36) 24 (23–50) 8b (6–25)
Resisted back extension ARV 8a (8–17) 19 (16–38) 27a (14–29) 19 (10–25)
Peak 11 (6–15) 33a or b (14–38) 15 (13–26) 12 (8–28)
Resisted trunk rotation (right) ARV 17 (14–29)
Peak 19 (13–27)
Resisted trunk rotation (left) ARV 8 (4–11)
Peak 3 (2–9)
Resisted hang ARV 27b (13–29) 7 (14–30)
Peak 17 (15–30) 19 (5–21)
Resisted hip flexion ARV 24 (18–30)
Peak 23b (19–28)
a
Used only 2 of 3 trials (trials 1 and 2).
b
Used only trials 2 and 3 following pairwise correlation comparison tests.

in three or more of the data sets performed. Between-trials CVs
ranged from 0% to 70% for peak muscle activity and from 2% to
61% for ARV muscle activity. Between-day CVs ranged from 6% to
57% for peak EMG muscle activity (excluding LG during the sit
up [CV = 93%]) and from 8% to 51% for ARV EMG (excluding LD dur-
ing the sit up [CV = 89%]). For both peak and ARV EMG, the lowest
variability occurred for RF and MF muscles and the highest oc-
curred for LD and LG muscles.
Between-trials variability derived from multiple subjects are
shown in Table 5. Peak EMG CV ranged from 7% to 27% while
ARV EMG CV ranged from 8% to 33%.
3.2. Variability of peak and ARV EMG during core exercises
Between-trials and between-day variability during the core
exercises derived from a single subject are shown in Table 6. Be-
tween-trials CV ranged from 1% to 65% for peak EMG and from
0% to 56% for ARV EMG (excluding EO during the weighted squat
(CV = 88%). Between-day CV ranged from 7% to 66% for peak EMG
(excluding RA during the weighted squat CV = 77%) and from 7%
to 54% for ARV EMG (excluding LG during the side bridge
CV = 61%). LG and EO muscles showed the largest variation be-
tween trials and between days for both peak and ARV EMG mea-
sures. The RF, GM and MF muscles were most repeatable muscle
activity both between-days and between-trials.
Between-trials variability derived from multiple subjects are
shown in Table 7. Peak EMG CV (Table 7) ranged from 5% to 28%,
while ARV EMG CV% ranged from 2% to 28%.
Within subject ICC values during the core exercises are shown
in Table 8. Values over 0.7 were deemed to be sufficiently reliable.
3.3. Interrelationship between ARV and Peak EMG variables during
core exercises
The average CV for peak EMG across all the exercises and mus-
cles was 45% and 35% for peak EMG and ARV EMG, respectively,
and was found to be a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Across the exercises the ARV EMG standard deviations ranged
from 3 to 67.9, while an absolute standard deviation range of
3.4–54.7 was observed for peak EMG (Table 9). When all the mus-
cles were averaged, the standard deviation for the static exercise
(side bridge) was 15.2 for ARV EMG and 15 for peak EMG compared
with the high intensity exercises (overhead squat and medicine
ball sit twist) of 19.5 and 17 (ARV EMG and peak EMG, respec-
tively), which suggests that static exercises are less variable,
although these differences were found to just miss the required
significance level (P = 0.05). The dynamic, asymmetrical, high-
threshold exercises resulted in the highest standard deviation val-
ues (medicine ball sit twist; ARV EMG 19 v peak EMG 17.8, respec-
tively, Table 9), while the asymmetrical, low-threshold exercises
(birddog and bent leg curl-up; ARV EMG 17.4, peak EMG 15.8) re-
sulted in the lowest standard deviation values which implies that
dynamic, high-threshold exercises are more variable than low-
threshold exercises. However these differences were again found
to just miss the required significance level between the two EMG
methods (low-threshold: P = 0.51; high-threshold P = 0.58). Some
exercises reported a high SD despite showing an acceptable level
of within subject variability. This implies that there is greater be-
tween subject variability than within subject variability.
A poor correlation was observed between peak and ARV EMG
for the static and dynamic high-threshold exercises (r < 0.56),
while the other exercises reported strong correlations between
108 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111

Table 6
Within-subject CV between days (mean) and within day (min and max range) derived from a single subject (n = 1) during the core stability and core strength exercises.

RA EO IO MF LD GM LG RF
Side bridge ARV 27 (2–9) 25 (5–53) 13 (2–16) 34 (16–34) 18 (1–18) 20 (3–15) 61 (0–24) 4 (4–5)
Peak 47 (4–16) 22 (7–47) 36 (6–47) 22 (5–25) 21 (12–23) 28 (6–18) 66 (1–17) 10 (8–14)
Bird dog ARV 35 (5–38) 26 (5–56) 20 (1–36) 9 (3–8) 23 (7–32) 11 (6–13) 44 (2–14) 16 (6–11)
Peak 7 (1–6) 24 (8–51) 17 (4–17) 7 (2–12) 20 (8–12) 13 (2–22) 36 (2–5) 20 (13–31)
Bent leg curl-up ARV 12 (8–12) 47 (10–53) 15 (3–18) 41 (3–46) 11 (5–11) 13 (2–19) 50 (1–18) 7 (3–8)
Peak 20 (8–23) 25 (6–50) 21 (1–17) 17 (1–22) 17 (7–14) 11 (4–19) 17 (12–23) 12 (2–9)
Overhead squat ARV 11 (4–13) 45 (2–88) 21 (3–47) 15 (4–16) 28 (3–17) 11 (2–16) 51 (6–18) 21 (15–27)
Peak 77 (37–46) 33 (5–59) 22 (7–15) 10 (1–12) 33 (6–18) 14 (4–18) 41 (4–10) 22 (18–27)
Med. ball sit twist ARV 15 (8–21) 29 (2–54) 12 (0–15) 24 (1–17) 11 (3–9) 11 (4–13) 54 (1–20) 11 (5–16)
Peak 29 (11–12) 46 (8–65) 20 (1–15) 61 (2–65) 23 (3–28) 26 (3–29) 29 (2–44) 10 (2–12)

Min = minimum %CV within a day (3 trials), Max = maximum %CV within a day (3 trials).

Table 7
Within-subject CV (log-transformed) derived from multiple subjects (n = 10) during the core stability and strength exercises (95% confidence levels shown in brackets).

Exercise RA EO IO MF LD GM LG RF
Side bridge ARV 23 (16–42) 17 (12–31) 13 (9–25) 14 (10–26) 5 (3–8) 2 (1–3) 23 (16–42) 9 (6–16)
Peak 13 (9–23) 8 (6–15) 5 (3–8) 10 (7–18) 9 (6–17) 13 (9–25) 8 (6–15) 9 (6–17)
Bird dog ARV 22 (16–34) 16 (11–25) 6 (4–9) 16 (11–25) 5 (3–7) 17 (12–26) 14 (10–22) 11 (8–17)
Peak 17 (13–27) 15 (11–23) 10 (7–16) 9 (7–15) 23 (17–36) 13 (10–21) 16 (12–25) 12 (9–18)
Bent leg curl-up ARV 22 (16–35) 10 (7–16) 5 (3–7) 11 (8–17) 2 (1–3) 5 (3–7) 7 (5–12) 13 (10–21)
Peak 10 (7–16) 8 (6–13) 13 (10–21) 23 (17–36) 7 (5–12) 9 (6–14) 12 (9–19) 14 (11–23)
Overhead squat ARV 28b (19–51) 16 (12–26) 11 (8–17) 22 (16–34) 17 (13–28) 9 (6–14) 8 (6–13) 7 (5–10)
Peak 18 (13–29) 28 (19–50) 22 (16–34) 6 (4–9) 22a (15–40) 14 (11–23) 9 (7–15) 11 (8–17)
Med. ball sit twist ARV 21 (16–33) 11 (8–17) 11 (5–12) 21 (15–32) 7b (5–12) 7 (5–12) 19 (14–29) 8 (6–13)
Peak 14 (10–22) 15 (11–23) 15 (11–23) 16 (11–25) 13a (9–23) 24 (18–39) 16a (11–25) 13 (9–20)
a
Used only 2 of 3 trials (trials 1 and 2).
b
Used only trials 2 and 3 following pairwise correlation comparison tests.

the EMG methods (r > 0.70) (Table 9). This suggests that peak EMG
and ARV EMG values are related during certain types of core stabil-
ity training exercises but not others. Peak EMG and ARV EMG val-
ues were observed to be highly correlated for RA (0.96), GM (0.77),
LG (0.97), MF (0.75) and EO (0.93) (Table 9). However a poor cor-
relation was found between the measures for the other muscles
(IO = 0.10; LD = 0.46; RF = 0.68).
4. Discussion
A functionally relevant and reliable measure is important to
sports practitioners in order to understand the demands placed
on the core musculature during exercises. It has been recognised
that ARV and peak EMG activity are important parameters in the
assessment of EMG data (De Luca, 1997; Hatton et al., 2008; Ed-
wards et al., 2008; Burdon, 2006). This is the first study to compare
these measures during core exercises.
Three studies have evaluated the repeatability of sEMG data
collection on the core musculature when performing core stability
and core strength exercises (Edwards et al., 2008; Liemohn et al.,
2005; Knutson et al., 1994). Behm (Knutson et al., 1994) found ICCs
for the isometric side bridge support exercise of 0.96 and 0.98 for
the dynamic birddog exercise, which can be classed as excellent.
Liemohn et al. (2005) observed ICCs for the front support bridge
exercise of 0.90 and values ranging from 0.71 to 0.95 for other
low-threshold core stability exercises. Similarly, Edwards et al.
(2008) observed a high repeatability (ICC > 0.9) for the vastus
medialis and vastus lateralis muscles during a sit-to-stand move-
ment. The current study has reported similar ICCs values for some
muscles during similar low-threshold core stability exercises (for
example, LD during the side bridge and bent leg curl-up exercises
and the IO during the birddog exercise; ICC > 0.7). However, some
muscles analysed during the core stability exercises did result in
lower ICC values than those previously reported (ICC < 0.7). This
maybe due to the more complex exercise movements being per-
formed and the greater number of core muscles being analysed,
with not all of these muscles being continually involved in all the
exercises which would result in a greater variability in the data.
Despite this, many of the exercises and muscles did result in
acceptable levels of ICC and CV. Generally, the ICC and CV% values
in this study indicate that for the muscles analysed the MVIC and
core exercises performed were sufficiently repeatable to
acceptable levels that have previously been reported to be accept-
able in EMG studies (Atkinson and Nevill, 1998; Pfeiffer et al.,
2006).
In general our data show that level of the variability was influ-
enced by the exercise being undertaken. It was found that low-
threshold exercises were more repeatable exercises than high-
threshold exercises. This interpretation is supported by previous
studies that have found for example, that sitting tasks are more
variable than prone tasks (Jackson et al., 2008), cycling tasks are
more variable than climbing stairs (Pfeiffer et al., 2006) and studies
that have observed high CV average values of over 80% during
highly dynamic taekwondo kicks (Aggeloussis et al., 2007). Overall
the ARV EMG variable was significantly (P < 0.05) less variable
(average CV 35%) when compared with peak EMG muscle activity
(average CV 45%), therefore ARV EMG is the least variable measure
of muscle activity produced during core training exercises. The
more variable peak EMG values could be due to inconsistencies
in balance correction muscle activity which would result in unpre-
dictable, short but large bursts of muscular activity to bring the
centre of mass back into a balanced position (for example, during
the medicine ball sit twist exercise where there is an unstable base
 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111 109

of support along with a highly dynamic movement) (McGill, 1999).

(0.68–0.79)

(0.35–0.47)
(0.65–0.79)

(0.54–0.68)
(0.60–0.74)

(0.15–0.24)
(0.59–0.70)
In some subjects this occurs and reached peak values whereas in

(0.17–0.3)
(0.07–0.2)

(0.05–0.2)
others it did not, subsequently increasing the variation in muscle
activity seen between subjects.
As there is a dearth of previous research using the ARV EMG

0.76
0.68
0.72
0.12
0.68
0.42

0.23
0.60

0.10
0.20
RF method during core exercises it is not possible to directly compare
the ARV EMG muscle activity during core exercises with previous
work. Data for peak EMG activity of selected core muscles is avail-
0.24 (0.31–0.3)
0.38 (0.32–0.49)
0.52 (0.45–0.61)

0.18 (0.12–0.29)
0.72 (0.67–0.76)
0.28 (0.21–0.39)
0.40 (0.35–0.49)

0.97 (0.90–0.98)

0.67 (0.6–00.76)
able but differences in the experimental parameters of different

0.56a (0.48–0.6)
studies can affect the data recorded; e.g. bandwidth selection, elec-
trode placement, repetition rate and the use of different MVC exer-
cises (Merletti, 1999). However, despite the possible differences
LG

between our study and other studies, there are similarities in the
peak EMG values. For example, during the side bridge exercise in
the current study, the RA muscle elicited a muscular contraction
0.17 (0.2–0.29)
0.06 (0.1–0.12)

of 43% of the MVIC compared to 48% (McGill, 2002) and 50% (Axler
0.99 (0.94–0.99)
0.48 (0.43–0.54)
0.65 (0.58–0.69)

0.95 (0.87–0.97)
0.91 (0.84–0.97)

0.94 (0.88–0.96)
0.70 (0.62–0.79)
0.56 (0.50–0.60)

and McGill, 1997) stated in previous studies. The side bridge also
resulted in similar activation levels (47% and 47%) to previous re-
search (40% and 58%) (Behm et al., 2002) for the LG muscle and
GM

the MF muscle, respectively, during the birddog exercise. Therefore

there is evidence that the relative magnitudes reported in the cur-
rent study are similar to previous studies.
0.97b (0.89–0.97)
0.24a (0.18–0.28)
0.93 (0.87–0.97)

0.97 (0.91–0.99)
0.59 (0.49–0.63)

0.51 (0.45–0.59)
0.94 (0.90–0.98)
0.85 (0.80–0.89)

0.48 (0.40–0.52)

The asymmetrical low-threshold exercise (Birddog) had the

1.00 (0.96–1.0)

strongest relationship between the ARV EMG and peak EMG vari-
ables (r = 0.81) due to the low variation in the CV values for the
ARV EMG and peak EMG variables. In comparison, the static exer-
LD

cise (side bridge) resulted in the weakest relationship between the

ARV EMG and peak EMG (r = 0.46) (although these differences
were found to lie just outside the level of significance, P < 0.05).
(0.32–0.54)
(0.56–0.87)
(0.63–0.84)

(0.54–0.71)
(0.20–0.39)
(0.30–0.53)
(0.50–0.64)

(0.70–0.82)
(0.57–0.70)
(0.60–0.78)

This is despite this exercise reporting the lowest SD between sub-

jects for the muscles. This difference maybe due to the nature of
the exercise and the two EMG data reduction methods, with one
Within-subject ICC during the core stability and core strength exercises (95% confidence limits are shown in brackets).

0.44
0.76
0.76
0.29
0.36
0.58
0.65
0.79
0.62
0.68

measuring activity over time and the other peak activity. The side
MF

bridge exercise recruits many core muscles throughout the dura-

tion of the exercise (high ARV EMG activity) but not to a great level
(0.15–0.36)
(0.75–0.89)

(0.72–0.91)
(0.86–0.99)
(0.63–0.82)
(0.69–0.89)
(0.52–0.69)
(0.78–0.96)
(0.28–0.43)
(0.73–0.97)

(low peak EMG activity) which would result in the poor correlation
between these two EMG data reduction methods. This suggests
that for core exercises (although not resulting in a significant dif-
ference here) the intensity of the exercise performed may influence
0.21
0.84

0.82
0.97
0.74
0.81
0.64
0.86
0.36
0.90
IO

the resultant muscular activity and subsequently how this muscu-

lar activity should be reported when using EMG measurements.
It was found that peak and ARV EMG are related (i.e. r > 0.70) for
0.22 (0.28–0.21)

0.33 (0.35–0.10)

five of the eight muscles and three of the five types of exercises
0.02b (0.01–0.13)
0.68 (0.61–0.78)
0.63 (0.51–0.76)
0.84 (0.73–0.89)

0.84 (0.71–0.89)
0.64 (0.50–0.71)

0.11 (0.09–0.19)

0.07 (0.03–0.20)

(r > 0.70). Peak and ARV EMG measures also identified the same
exercise that elicited the highest muscle activity for four of the
eight muscles (e.g. EO – Medicine ball sit twist, LG, Overhead squat).
This suggests that peak and ARV EMG are in some way related,
EO

however, this relationship is affected by the type of exercise per-

formed and the muscle being analysed. Differences were observed
0.16 (0.12–0.21)

0.31 (0.38–0.12)
0.02 (0.03–0.23)

0.04 (0.08–0.19)

between peak and ARV EMG for overall resultant muscle activity
0.22b (0.18–0.36)
0.74 (0.68–0.77)

0.24 (0.16–0.38)
0.32 (0.25–0.39)
0.50 (0.43–0.59)

during exercises. For example, a peak EMG value of 73% MVIC

0.18 (0.1–0.32)

was observed for the GM muscle during the birddog exercise, while
ARV EMG resulted in 56% MVIC of maximal activation. In contrast,
during the static exercise, ARV EMG measured a higher level of acti-
Used only 2 of 3 trials (trials 1 and 2).
RA

vation for the GM compared to the peak EMG value (47% vs. 33%
MVIC) (Table 9). The results suggest that due to the different de-
mands on the body (Brandon, 2006), high-threshold activities gen-
Peak

Peak

Peak

Peak

Peak
ARV

ARV

ARV

ARV

ARV

erally result in greater peak EMG activity (a result of the larger

Used only trials 2 and 3.

forces and faster movements that the muscles have to overcome),

while the lower threshold activities result in a greater ARV EMG
Med. Ball sit twist

activity (due to the postural corrections and longer muscle activa-

Bent leg curl-up

Overhead squat

tions to maintain stability during slower movements). Therefore

Side bridge

by reporting the average rectified EMG value, that has largely been
Bird dog
Exercise

overlooked in past studies, alongside the peak EMG value, a greater

Table 8

appreciation can be gained about the type and extent of muscle

a

activity produced during well-used core stability training exercises.

110 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111

Table 9
Interrelationship between peak EMG and ARV EMG as %MVIC for the eight muscles for each core stability and core strength exercise. Also shown are the SD values (in brackets)
and the Pearson’s correlations coefficients between Peak and ARV EMG measures.

RA EO IO MF LD GM LG RF r
Side bridge ARV 34 (5.8) 70 (14) 33 (14.5) 47 (29) 9 (4.5) 47 (29.6) 36 (11.2) 37 (12.9) 0.46
Peak 43 (11.2) 71 (24.8) 58 (29) 47 (9.9) 36 (13.3) 33 (11.9) 47 (16.5) 9 (3.7)
Bird dog ARV 8 (3.0) 31 (9.0) 73 (67.9) 54 (15.7) 51 (20.4) 56 (11.2) 37 (10.4) 46 (12) 0.81
Peak 8 (3.4) 38 (8.0) 58 (49.9) 56 (6.7) 37 (10.0) 73 (21.9) 54 (14.0) 51 (10.7)
Bent leg curl-up ARV 49 (13.2) 49 (24.5) 28 (9.8) 29 (28.4) 15 (11.4) 38 (24.7) 12 (9.1) 25 (7.0) 0.77
Peak 90 (26.1) 79 (31.6) 69 (24.1) 38 (10.6) 12 (5.4) 28 (13.4) 29 (11.9) 15 (5.5)
Overhead squat ARV 10 (4.6) 24 (9.4) 34 (13.9) 81 (25.1) 62 (50.2) 50 (18.0) 60 (21.6) 57 (17.1) 0.74
Peak 20 (4.8) 28 (5.6) 36 (11.2) 50 (10.5) 60 (31.8) 36 (13.7) 81 (31.6) 62 (20.5)
Med. ball sit twist ARV 43 (20.2) 84 (30.24) 37 (21.1) 17 (6.5) 51 (25.5) 39 (19.5) 15 (9.7) 89 (19.6) 0.56
Peak 63 (10.7) 107 (20.3) 72 (54.7) 39 (16.4) 15 (6.5) 37 (17.4) 17 (8.0) 51 (8.2)
r 0.96 0.93 0.10 0.75 0.46 0.77 0.97 0.68

5. Conclusions
The ARV EMG variable is significantly less variable when mea-
suring the muscle activity of the core musculature compared to
the peak EMG variable. Peak and ARV EMG values are correlated
for some but not all core exercises. It is suggested that ARV EMG
data should be recorded alongside the peak EMG measure when
assessing core exercises.
References
Aggeloussis N et al. Repeatability of electromyographic waveforms during the
naeryo Chagi in taekwondo. J Sports Sci Med 2007;6:6–9.
Akuthota V, Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85(3 Suppl.
1):S86–92.
Arokoski JP et al. Back and hip extensor muscle function during therapeutic
exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80(7):842–50.
Atkinson G, Nevill A. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error
(reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med
1998;26(4):217–38.
Axler CT, McGill SM. Low back loads over a variety of abdominal exercises:
searching for the safest abdominal challenge. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1997;29(6):804–11.
Bamman M et al. Evaluation of surface electromyography during maximal
voluntary contraction. J Strength Cond Res 1997;11(2):68–72.
Basmajian J, De Luca C. Muscles alive: their functions revealed by
electromyography. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Williams; 1985.
Behm DG, Anderson K, Curnew RS. Muscle force and activation under stable and
unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res 2002;16(3):416–22.
Bolgla L, Uhl T. Reliability of electromyographic normalisation methods for
evaluating the hip musculature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2005;17(1):102–11.
Brandon R. Core training menus. In: Taylor J, editor. Core stability: injury free
performance. London: Pye, J.A.; 2006. p. 57–90.
Burdon A. Surface electromyography. In: BASES biomechanics testing guidelines;
2006.
Check P. Swissball exercises for swimming, soccer and basketball. Sports Coach
1999;21:12–3.
Comerford MJ. Performance stability: module 1 stability for performance: course 1:
core stability concepts. The ‘Performance Matrix’. UK: Comerford &
Performance Stability; 2007.
Cosio-Lima LM, Reynolds KL, Winter C, Paolone V. Effects of physioball and
conventional floor exercises on early phase adaptions in back and abdominal
core stability and balance in women. J Strength Cond Res 2003;17:721–5.
De Luca C. Use of the surface EMG signal for performance evaluation of back
muscles. Muscle Nerve 1993;16:210–6.
De Luca C. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech
1997;13:135–63.
Di Fabio RP. Reliability of computerized surface electromyography for determining
the onset of muscle activity. Phys Ther 1987;67:43–8.
Edwards L et al. Effect of shoe heel light on vastus medialis and vastus lateralis
electromyographic activity during sit to stand. J Orthop Surg Res
2008;3(2):1749–99.
Ekstorm RA, Soderberg GL, Donatelli RA. Normlisation procedures using maximum
voluntary isometric contractions for the serratus anterior and trapezius muscles
during surface EMG analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2005;15:415–28.
Elphinston J. Getting to the bottom of things. Sportex Dyn 2004;2:12–6.
Enoka R, Fuglevand A. Neuromuscular basis of the maximum voluntary force
capacity of muscle. In: Grabiner M, editor. Current issues in
biomechanics. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1993. p. 215–36.
Faries MD, Greenwood M. Core training: stabilising the confusion. Strength Cond J
2007;29(2):10–25.
Farina D, Merletti R, Enoka R. The extraction of neural strategies from the surface
EMG. J Appl Physiol 2004;96:1486–95.
Finni T et al. Measurement of EMG activity with textile electrodes embedded into
clothing. Physiol Meas 2007;28(11):1405–19.
Finucane S et al. Reproducibility of electromyographic recordings of submaximal
concentric and eccentric muscle contractions in humans. Electromyogr Clin
Neurophysiol 1998;109:290–6.
Gardner-Morse M, Stokes IA, Laible JP. Role of muscles in lumbar spine stability in
maximum extension efforts. J Orthop Res 1995;13(5):802–8.
Giroux B, Lamontagne M. Comparison between surface electrodes and
intramuscular wire electrodes in isometric and dynamic conditions.
Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990;30:397–405.
Golhofer A et al. Reproducibility of electromyographic patterns in stretch-
shortening type contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol 1990;60:7–14.
Goodwin P et al. Reliability of leg muscle electromyography in vertical jumping. Eur
J Appl Physiol 1999;79:374–8.
Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Newton RU, Alen M. Changes in electromyographic
activity, muscle fibre and force production characteristics during heavy
resistance/power strength training in middle-aged and older men and
women. Acta Physiol Scand 2001;171(1):51–62.
Hasegawa I. Using the overhead squat for core development. NSCA’s Perform
Training J 2004;3(6):19–21.
Hatton A et al. The effect of textured surfaces on postural stability and lower limb
muscle activity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2008;19(5):957–64.
Hildenbrand K, Noble L. Abdominal muscle activity while performing trunk-flexion
exercises using the ab roller, AB slide, fitball and conventionally performed
trunk curls. J Athletic Training 2004;39(1):37–43.
Hodges PW. Is there a role for transversus abdominis in lumbo-pelvic stability? Man
Ther 1999;4(2):74–86.
Hodges P, Bui B. A comparison of computer based methods for the determination of
onset of muscle contraction using electromyography. Electroencephalogr Clin
Neurophysiol 1996;101:511–9.
Hodges P, Cresswell A, Thorstensson A. Preparatory trunk motion accompanies
rapid upper limb movement. Exp Brain Res 1999;124(1):69–79.
Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med
2000;30(1):1–15.
Howard J, Enoka R. Maximum bilateral contractions are modified by neurally
mediated interlimb effects. J Appl Physiol 1991;70:306–16.
Hubley-Kozey CL, Vezina MJ. Muscle activation during exercises to improve trunk
stability in men with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83(8):1100–8.
Hubley-Kozey CL, Vezina MJ. Differentiating temporal electromyographic
waveforms between those with chronic low back pain and healthy controls.
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002;17(9–10):621–9.
Jackson JA et al. Comparison of the repeatability of submaximal and maximal
methods commonly employed for normalisation of the erector spinae muscles
in the thoracic and lumbar region. In: North American Congress on
Biomechanics. Michigan; 2008.
Jeffreys I. Developing a progressive core stability program. Strength Cond J
2002;24(5):65–6.
Kadaba M, Wooten M, Gainey J. Repeatability of phasic muscular activity:
performance of surface and intramuscular wire electrodes in gait analysis. J
Orthop Res 1985;3:350–9.
Kibler WB, Press J, Sciascia A. The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports
Med 2006;36(3):189–98.
Knutson L et al. A study of various normalisation procedures for within day
electromyographic data. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1994;4(1):47–59.
Komi P, Buskirk E. Reproducibility of electromyographic measurements with
inserted wire electrodes and surface electrodes. Electromyography
1970;4:357–67.
Konrad P, Schmitz K, Denner A. Neuromuscular evaluation of trunk-training
exercises. J Athletic Training 2001;36(2):109–18.
Lehman GJ. Resistance training for performance and injury prevention in golf. J Can
Chiropr Assoc 2006;50(1):27–42.
Liemohn WP, Baumgartner TA, Gagnon LH. Measuring core stability. J Strength Cond
Res 2005;19(3):583–6.
 A.E. Hibbs et al. / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2011) 102–111
Mannion A et al. Muscle thickness changes during abdominal hollowing: an
assessment of between-day measurement error in controls and patients with
chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2008;17:494–501.
Marshall P, Murphy B. The validity and reliability of surface EMG to assess the
neuromuscular response of the abdominal muscles to rapid limb movement. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13(5):477–89.
McGill SM. Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature
during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque:
implications for lumbar mechanics. J Orthop Res 1991;9(1):91–103.
McGill SM. Low back exercises: evidence for improving exercise regimens. Phys
Ther 1998;78(7):754–65.
McGill S. Stability: from biomechanical concept to chiropractice practice. J Can
Chiropr Assoc 1999;43:75–88.
McGill SM. Low back stability: from formal description to issues for performance
and rehabilitation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2001;29(1):26–31.
McGill S. Low back disorders: evidence-based prevention and
rehabilitation. Champaign, ILL: Human Kinetics; 2002.
McGill SM et al. Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar
spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2003;13(4):353–9.
Merletti R. Standards for reporting EMG data. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1999;9:3–4.
Merletti R. Standards for reporting EMG data. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1999;9(1).
Pfeiffer KA et al. Physical activates in adolescent giels variability in energy
expenditure. Am J Prev Med 2006;31(4):328–31.
Posner-Mayer J. Swiss ball applications for orthopaedic and sports
medicine. Longmont, CO: Ball Dynamics International Inc.; 1995.
Reed G, Lynn F, Meade B. Use of coefficient of variation in assessing variability of
quantitative assays. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002;9(6):1235–9.
Santana J. Sport-specific conditioning: the serape effect – a kinesiological model for
core training. Strength Cond J 2003;25(2):73–4.
Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol
Bull 1979;86(2):420–8.
Stanton R, Reaburn PR, Humphries B. The effect of short-term Swiss ball training on
core stability and running economy. J Strength Cond Res 2004;18(3):522–8.
Trappe S, Pearson D. Effects of weight assisted dry-land strength training on
swimming performance. J Strength Cond Res 1994;8(4):209–13.
Urquhart DM, Hodges PW, Story IH. Postural activity of the abdominal muscles
varies between regions of these muscles and between body positions. Gait
Posture 2005;22(4):295–301 [Epub 2005 Jan 19].
Vezina MJ, Hubley-Kozey CL. Muscle activation in therapeutic exercises to improve
trunk stability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81(10):1370–9.
Warden S, Wajswelner H, Bennell K. Comparison of AB shaper and conventionally
performed abdominal exercises using surface electromyography. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 1999;31:1656–64.
Winter D, Fuglevand A, Archer S. Cross-talk in surface electromyography:
theoretical and practical estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1994;4:15–26.
Yang J, Winter D. Electromyography reliability in maximal and submaximal
isometric contractions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983;64:417–20.
Yang J, Winter D. Electromyographic amplitude normalisation methods: improving
their sensitivity as diagnostic tools in gait analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1984;65:517–21.
A.E. Hibbs is a BASES Accredited Sports Biomechanist
and has worked at the English Institute of Sport for
the past 7 years providing sports biomechanics and
performance analysis support to elite athletes and
professional sporting teams. She is completing her
PhD in core stability and core strength currently and
has recently started lecturing at Northumbria Uni-
versity in the UK. Angela has also been published in
this area in the Sports Medicine journal with a review
of the current theories and research beliefs regarding
the training and assessment of core stability and core
strength in elite athletes.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
111
K.G. Thompson BSc (Hons), M.MED.SCI, PhD, FBASES
is Head of Sport and Exercise Sciences and Co-
Director of the Sport, Exercise and Wellbeing
research centre in the School of Psychology and Sport
Sciences at Northumbria University. He is currently
an Associate Editor of the International Journal of
Sport Physiology and Performance and an Advisory
Board Member for the Journal of Sports Sciences. He
has held the positions of Chair of the British Associ-
ation of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) Sport
and Performance Division and Chair of the BASES
Special Sports Science Committee. In 2009, he was
given the award of BASES Fellow for services to the
Association and the profession. Professor Thompson joined Northumbria University
full-time in February 2009 from the English Institute of Sport (EIS) where he had
held the positions of Director of Sports Sciences and Regional Manager for the NE
and NW Regional teams (2002–2009).
D.N. French is a Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiol-
ogy and Strength and Conditioning in the Depart-
ment of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Northumbria
University. He sits on the Board of Directors for the
United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Associa-
tion, and has previously worked for the English
Institute of Sport. He is also the current Strength and
Conditioning Coach to Newcastle United Football
Club in the English Premier League.
David Hodgson has a BEng in Mechanical Engineer-
ing from the University of Leeds, and has worked at
Teesside University since 2002 as a Senior Research
Support Technician within the School of Health &
Social Care. During this time he has contributed to a
wide variety of research projects in the area of Bio-
mechanics, with a focus on instrumentation and data
collection techniques. He has co-authored publica-
tions in Gait & Posture and the Journal of Orthopaedic
Surgery and Research, as well as abstracts at several
international conferences.
I. R. Spears is a Reader in Biomechanics at Teesside
University with a specialism in computer simula-
tions. His biomechanics-based models have been
developed with public and private partners to
address biomechanical problems in dentistry, ortho-
paedics and sports.