BIOMEDE 231 001 WN 2025 - Morgan Stimpson

Lab 1

PDF Version generated by

Morgan Stimpson
on

Feb 15, 2025 @05:33 PM EST

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Methods & Materials .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Methods and Materials ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Results & Observations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Results and Observations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Lab 1/Introduction 2 of 9

Introduction

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 06, 2025, 8:36 PM EST

Names: Morgan Stimpson, Ally Wang, Arianna Mochalkin, Andrea Velazquez

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 06, 2025, 8:49 PM EST

Purpose/objective

Objectives

● Analyze various isometric loading positions with free-body diagrams

● Learn the fundamentals of obtaining and reading an EMG signal

● Compare a theoretical analysis of arm loading with a laboratory-acquired signal

● Understand the possibilities and limitations of measuring individual muscle force in vivo

Purpose

To determine if there is a difference in EMG RMS signals in your arm in different positions (135 degrees angle,
supinated, pronated, and muscle fatigue)

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 06, 2025, 8:53 PM EST

Hypothesis

null: There is no significant relationship between the position of the arm and the EMG RMS signals
alternate: There is a significant relationship between the position of the arm and the EMG RMS signals

I believe that there will be a significant relationship between the position of the arm and the EMG RMS signals.

Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Methods & Materials/Methods and Materials 3 of 9

Methods and Materials

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 06, 2025, 7:40 PM EST

Materials:

Surface electrodes (self-adhering, pre-gelled) - in the drawers.

Athletic tape (to provide strain relief when attaching surface electrodes) - the drawers.

Weights (dumbbells) - under the tables.

Electrode lead assemblies (2) – these will be at your table. See illustration, below:

BNC-to-Banana adapters (2).

Black hookup wire, for connecting grounds of BNC-to-Banana adapters.

Banana cables (2 red, 1 black, all 6-foot).

Alligator clip assemblies (2 red, 1 black).

BNC “T” to connect output of Stanford SR560 to both oscilloscope and LabVIEW.

BNC Cable (2).

LabVIEW VI (“EMG for BME 231 Labs.vi”) - on computer desktop near bottom right corner.

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 15, 2025, 2:11 PM EST

Methods:
1. Elbow Flexion Pre-Analysis (Extended Pre-Lab)

A. compare your Pre-Lab free body diagram (90° flexion) and equations for biceps force and reaction force at the
elbow, with your group, discuss any differences found

B. create a similar free-body diagram together for an elbow at 135° flexion (45° off the vertical with your hand nearing
your shoulder). Solve the force generated in the biceps and the reaction force at the elbow as a function of the load (L)
in the hand.

2. Prepare the Volunteer with EMG Setup

For the subject:

A. Add four 2.5 lb weights to the dumbbell bar; (about 14lbs)

B. place a small piece of tape on the lateral epicondyle (bony protuberance on the outside of the elbow) and another on
the greater tuberosity of the shoulder (a similarly bony protuberance). These are very approximate landmarks (The GSI
told us that this part was not necessary so we didn't do it)

Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Methods & Materials/Methods and Materials 4 of 9

C. Prep the skin at the biceps and elbow (skin contact) using the provided alcohol pads.

D. Attach two surface electrodes to the belly of the biceps and a third to the elbow of the same arm

E. Attach the alligator clips to the electrodes – two reds on the biceps electrodes, and the black on the elbow

For the operator/observers:

A. Connect the banana cables to the pre-amplifier as demonstrated in the provided handout.

B. Turn on pre-amplifier, confirming presets as demonstrated in the provided handout. These presets enable differential
amplification by 1000x with band-pass filtering.

C. Turn on the oscilloscope and open the LabVIEW VI on the workstation computers. Have the subject flex and confirm
signal visibility on both the oscilloscope and LabVIEW VI.

D. Enable the 60 Hz filter in the LabVIEW VI.

E. Have the subject hold the weight (dumbbell) at 90° elbow flexion and make vertical scale adjustments as needed on
both the oscilloscope (“scale” knob) and LabVIEW VI (right-click on the graph, then Properties, then Scales,
Amplitude).

3. Elbow Flexion

A. We will first collect a “baseline” EMG reading while not holding a weight or flexing.

Subject: While standing, let your arm hang loosely at your side (approximately 0° elbow flexion) without holding the
weight.

Operator:

i. Begin acquisition of signal by clicking “run” on the LabVIEW VI (white arrow beneath the “Edit” menu ).

ii. Wait until the RMS response is stable, then continue to record an additional 20 seconds (a full window), then stop
collection

iii. Once stopped, find the file in the designated BME 231 folder (bottom right corner of the desktop) and rename it to
reflect the trial.

B. Next we will collect our 90° elbow flexion

Subject: Place the weight in your hand and move your arm to approx. 90° elbow flexion, palm up. Keep your elbow
resting at your side, with your upper arm perpendicular to the ground.

Observers: Visually inspect the arm angle and suggest any alterations necessary; take a few snapshots (cell phone
pictures will suffice!) of the process to include in your notebook/report. You may share pictures, but be sure to describe
who took the picture in the caption.

Operator: Acquire 20 seconds of steady-state EMG RMS response, as before, with the subject supporting the weight.
Rename the file to reflect the data that were collected.

Subject: Note the perceived exertion required during the test. Rest for at least one minute.
Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Methods & Materials/Methods and Materials 5 of 9

C. Repeat the previous steps (2a-b) for 135° elbow flexion (forearm rotated 45° towards shoulder).

D. Subject: Rest for 4-5 minutes. All: Have a brief conversation about something other than the lab.

4. Pronation / Supination

A. Subject: As an initial qualitative test, hold your arm (with no weight) at 90° flexion, palm up (supine). After observing
the EMG signal with your team, pronate your hand (rotating your forearm so that your palm faces down). Observe the
signal. If a difference is hard to distinguish, you may try this with the weight in your hand

B. We’ll back up the qualitative observations with data. Repeat the experiments from the Elbow Flexion section above,
but with the forearm pronated.

C. Subject: Rest for 4-5 minutes. All: Continue your conversation about something other than the lab.

NOTE: No signal with supination to pronation without weight

NOTE: With supination to pronation, the subject's arm was unable to fully rest at her side so this could effect our results
slightly.

5. Fatigue

Operator: Begin continuous EMG RMS data collection, noting the times at which Subject begins and stops the fatigue
test.

Subject: Place the heavy weight in your hand and move your arm to 90° flexion. Hold until you cannot sustain the
position any longer.

All: Strongly & loudly encourage the Subject to continue holding the weight aloft at 90° flexion angle regardless of pain
level. Success depends on true fatigue

6. Data Management

A. Before you leave the lab, open each of your data files that use a LabVIEW extension in Notepad and copy and paste
the contents into Excel or other spreadsheet software for future graphing. Be sure to include in your notebook the raw
data for all trials, as well as the FBDs that were completed while in the lab.

B. When you’re finished, be sure to clean up your workstation, placing the weights back in their container and (neatly!)
tidying the cables provided.

Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Results & Observations/Results and Observations 6 of 9

Results and Observations

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 15, 2025, 4:07 PM EST

P1: Sketch the FBDs for both 90° and 135° flexion, alongside the equations for biceps force and elbow reaction forces.

P2: Compare the forces generated at these two angles. What is the mechanical explanation for the difference between
them? Hypothesize how the EMG signals at 90° and 135° flexion will compare. Remember this hypothesis for your Lab
Report.

At 90 degrees, the lever arm and bicep are more orthogonal to each other than they are at 135 degrees. The lever arms
and the forces of gravity due to the mass of the arm and dumbbell are also more orthogonal to each other for 90
Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Results & Observations/Results and Observations 7 of 9

degrees compared to 135 degrees. This means that it is easier for the bicep to lift the weight at 90 degrees, but it must
counteract a greater force.

We hypothesize that the EMG signal at 90 degrees will be greater than that of 135 degrees flexion according to our
theoretical calculations for force exerted by the bicep. We think that as EMG signals go up so will the force so
whichever degree had a higher theoretical force (90) will also have the higher EMG signal. At 90 degrees, our
theoretical calculations came out to 512.583N whereas at 135 degrees it was 449.961N.

P3: As the subject: reflect out loud on the perceived effort between the two tests. Regardless of the data, did one angle
feel like it required more exertion than another? Does this make sense? As operators/observers: does the subject’s
reflections match what you observed?

135 degrees required more exertion for our subject. This does not make sense because according to the theoretical
calculations, the force FB is slightly greater for 90 degrees than it was for 135 degrees.

As an observer, I noticed that the 135 angle seemed to be harder to hold for a certain amount of time which correlates
to what the subject also felt but doesn't match our theoretical forces found during the pre-lab.

P4: Consider the average (or mean) EMG RMS Values for both tests (for Lab time and lab notebooks, a quick visual
estimation is fine, you will calculate this in the Lab Report). Do you think there is a distinct difference in EMG RMS
between the two tests?

There was a visual difference in EMG RMS between the two tests. The 135-degree flexion plot had slightly higher
values but not anything that was drastically higher than that of the 90-degree EMG RMS values.

P5: What do you notice about the signal between the pronated and supinated forearm?

The signal was slightly higher when supinated than when pronated, this logically doesn't make sense because you are
still using the same exact force on each of your muscles it's just in a different orientation which shouldn't affect the force
value.

P6: Again, have the subject reflect on the perceived effort between the two tests as done in P3. What did they say?

135 degrees required less exertion than 90 degrees.

P7: Next up: a fatigue test in which you will hold a heavy weight until you can’t support it any longer. Hypothesize what
you expect to see in the EMG RMS response as the fatigue process proceeds. Remember this hypothesis for your lab
report.

We hypothesize that exertion will increase over time, which will lead the EMG RMS to increase over time. It is possible
that right at the end, the signal will drop suddenly because the muscles will fail and stop exertion.

P8: What were your qualitative observations of the EMG signal during fatigue?

Exertion did seem to increase throughout the test, then at the end, the muscles seemed to have relaxed right before
fatigue, this aligns with the

P9: Consider your predictive equations for biceps force from the Pre-Lab. Plug in the weight your team’s volunteer held
in the hand and report the biceps force predicted by your simplified model at each arm angle. How does the biceps
force, when collected empirically (i.e. through experimentation) compare with this predictive calculation? Can they be
compared?

Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Results & Observations/Results and Observations 8 of 9

At 90 degrees, our theoretical calculations came out to 512.583N whereas at 135 degrees it was 449.961N. Looking at
our EMG RMS signals we can see that they tended to be lower in 135 degrees than they were in 90 degrees. This
means that our experimentation values are the opposite of what we expected, however, with these values being very
similar they could've been due to a number of errors. The predictive calculation and empirically collected data cannot
exactly be compared due to real-world limitations. For example, there is crosstalk interference in the EMG signal, and
the tape slipped a little in the middle of the trials. The relationship between the muscle force and EMG RMS is not linear
in reality, although we assume it for the purposes of this lab.
Morgan Stimpson - Feb 15, 2025, 5:01 PM EST

results and observations

During the testing of the forces of each muscle, the angles used (90, and 135) seemed to get harder and harder to hold
for the 20-second period to collect all of the data. This could affect some of the results that we collected.

These images show our subject going through the 90-degree and 135-degree angle force tests.

-while collecting data for our supination and pronation we weren't able to collect a signal without any weight so we did
these steps while holding the 14.5 lbs dumbbell, while flipping the arm our subject was also not able to completely hold
her arm in pronation.

Loading [MathJax]/extensions/Safe.js
Lab 1/Conclusions 9 of 9

Conclusions

Morgan Stimpson - Feb 15, 2025, 5:33 PM EST

Conclusion

During this lab, we tested multiple different angles and orientations of the arm while holding a weight in a subject's hand
to determine if there was any change in the force exerted on the elbow and bicep during these changes. After collecting
this data we compared the theoretical analysis that was found in the pre-lab using free-body diagrams. We found that
because the EMG RMS signals were very similar in each different test done during lab we could conclude that there
was little to no difference in the force in the bicep and elbow from a change in the angle or orientation of the arm.