Back

PCA-Guided Separation of Mixed Motor Unit Sources in High-Density EMG

Du, Z.; McManus, L.

2026-06-30 neurology
10.64898/2026.06.27.26356748 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Decomposition of high-density electromyographic signals enables non-invasive analysis of individual motor unit (MU) behavior, but reliable interpretation of physiological changes in health and disease depends on accurate MU discharge detection. This accuracy is compromised by mixed source estimates, where high amplitude peaks are associated with discharges from more than one MU. We introduce a post-decomposition framework to identify and separate suspected mixed sources using PCA-guided source refinement. Method: For each suspected mixed source, extended and whitened EMG vectors were extracted at source peaks and projected into a low-dimensional PCA subspace. This subspace highlighted MU-specific differences across candidate discharges, including subtle or spatially localized features of the spatiotemporal MUAP profile. Clusters in the PCA subspace were used to initialize source estimates for the constituent MUs. During iterative source refinement, source peak amplitudes were reweighted according to the distance of their corresponding points from the associated cluster center. Particle swarm optimization selected the reweighting factor that minimized the coefficient of variation of inter-spike intervals (CoVISI). Results: The algorithm separated mixed MU sources in simulated and experimental HDsEMG data. In simulated data, resolving mixed sources increased median rate of agreement (RoA) by >40%. In experimental recordings, MU yield increased by 1.27 per trial and CoVISI decreased by 0.28 (33% RoA improvement). Conclusions: PCA-based representation enhanced separability between MUs with similar MUAP profiles, while distance-based amplitude reweighting reduced re-merging during source refinement. Significance: This framework resolves merged MU discharge trains, improving decomposition accuracy and recovering MUs that might otherwise be excluded by quality thresholds.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.7%
2
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.6%
4
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
5
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
6
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.1%
8
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
9
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.2%
10
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.5%
12
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
14
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Brain Topography
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
npj Systems Biology and Applications
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.8%
23
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
25
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%