Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187

www.elsevier.com/locate/jelekin

Elimination of electrocardiogram contamination

from electromyogram signals: An evaluation of currently
used removal techniques
Janessa D.M. Drake, Jack P. Callaghan *

Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1

Received 1 October 2004; received in revised form 1 April 2005; accepted 1 July 2005

Abstract

Trunk electromyographic signals (EMG) are often contaminated with heart muscle electrical activity (ECG) due to the proximity
of the collection sites to the heart and the volume conduction characteristics of the ECG through the torso. Few studies have quan-
tified ECG removal techniques relative to an uncontaminated EMG signal (gold standard or criterion measure), or made direct com-
parisons between different methods for a given set of data. Understanding the impacts of both untreated contaminated EMG and
ECG elimination techniques on the amplitude and frequency parameters is vital given the widespread use of EMG. The purpose of
this study was to evaluate four groups of current and commonly used techniques for the removal of ECG contamination from EMG
signals.
ECG recordings at two intensity levels (rest and 50% maximum predicted heart rate) were superimposed on 11 uncontaminated
biceps brachii EMG signals (rest, 7 isometric and 3 isoinertial levels). The 23 removal methods used were high pass digital filtering
(finite impulse response (FIR) using a Hamming window, and fourth-order Butterworth (BW) filter) at five cutoff frequencies (20,
30, 40, 50, and 60 Hz), template techniques (template subtraction and an amplitude gating template), combinations of the subtrac-
tion template and high pass digital filtering, and a frequency subtraction/signal reconstruction method.
For muscle activation levels between 10% and 25% of maximum voluntary contraction, the template subtraction and BW filter
with a 30 Hz cutoff were the two best methods for maximal ECG removal with minimal EMG distortion. The BW filter with a 30 Hz
cutoff provided the optimal balance between ease of implementation, time investment, and performance across all contractions and
heart rate levels for the EMG levels evaluated in this study.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ECG contamination; EMG; High pass filter; Subtraction template; Gating

1. Introduction conduction characteristics of the ECG through the tor-

Electromyographic signals (EMG) collected from the
trunk musculature are often contaminated by the heart
muscle electrical activity (ECG) [26], due to the proxim-
ity of the collection sites to the heart and the volume
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x7080; fax: +1 519
746 6776/763 5902.
E-mail address: callagha@uwaterloo.ca (J.P. Callaghan).
so. Few studies have quantified ECG removal tech-
niques relative to an uncontaminated EMG (gold
standard or criterion measure), or made direct compar-
isons between different removal methods for a given set
of data. EMG represents the sum of the motor unit
action potentials in the detection area of the surface
electrodes. Hence, EMG is a tool routinely used for
a variety of applications in a very large breadth of
disciplines. These include assessing the function and

1050-6411/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.07.003
176 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187
physiology of the neuromuscular system in both healthy
and special populations (e.g., muscle strength, motor
unit behaviour/properties, activation patterns/onsets,
sensory/reflex pathways, and localized fatigue)
[4,12,23]. Furthermore, EMG can be incorporated in
biomechanical models to estimate joint loading and
muscle forces, and in rehabilitation programmes to im-
prove control of movement for patients with a prosthe-
sis or paralysis [12,22]. However, EMG can only be a
valuable analytical tool when it is properly acquired,
processed, and interpreted [23]. The EMG and the
ECG frequency spectra overlap. The surface EMG sig-
nal spans 10–500 Hz with most of the signal power con-
centrated between 20 and 200 Hz [33]. The ECG signal
has power out to 100 Hz [33] with the bulk of the power
falling below 35 Hz [11]. Subsequently, the contaminat-
ing ECGs can increase the power of the frequencies in
the lower end of the EMG spectrum and distort the
amplitude of the EMG, thus presenting a major chal-
lenge to the subsequent extraction of accurate and useful
information.
Investigations of ECG contamination in EMG sig-
nals have employed techniques such as high pass filter-
ing [26,27], various subtraction methods
[2,5,7,10,14,17,32], and amplitude gating [5]. However,
few studies have quantified the techniques relative to
an uncontaminated EMG signal (gold standard or cri-
terion measure), or made direct comparisons between
different methods for a given data set. Unsurprisingly,
controversy over the best method to remove ECG
contamination from EMG signals persists. Difficulties
in comparing between studies arise due to the different
signals used (diaphragmatic or skeletal muscle), elec-
trodes, collection systems, and methods (esophageal
or surface EMG) [1,6]. Moreover, the technique effi-
cacy is usually evaluated by visual inspection without
additional quantification, as the investigations are usu-
ally performed on contaminated EMG, leaving the ef-
fect of the removal technique on the EMG signal
largely unknown. The inability to compare methods
and the lack of quantification of the effect of a re-
moval technique are likely at the root of ECG re-
moval controversy. Schweitzer et al. [27] discount the
use of the clipping technique on the basis that the
resulting square waves are more detrimental than
the original ECG contamination. Based on their study
using diaphragmatic EMG, these authors do not sup-
port the use of a high pass filter (HPF) with 20 Hz
cutoff, but supported the use of a HPF with 50–
60 Hz cutoff frequency. However, Clancy et al. [12]
emphasize that a HPF with a cutoff greater than
20 Hz may not be applicable for fatigue situations
involving surface EMG. In non-fatiguing situations,
Redfern et al. [26] caution that employing an unneces-
sarily high cutoff will result in sufficient loss of EMG
information to make the EMG unsuitable for most
applications. Redfern et al. [26] advocate for the use
of a finite impulse response high pass digital filter with
a cutoff at 30 Hz from their investigation of HPFs
with cutoffs of 10, 30 and 60 Hz on a variety of con-
taminated surface EMG signals. Bartolo et al. [5]
compared a subtraction template technique, based on
similar methods used by Levine et al. [17] and Bloch
[10], to amplitude gating and concluded that the sub-
traction technique was superior. Amplitude gating was
found by Black and Lovely [7] to perform better than
both clipping and adaptive noise cancellation (a type
of subtraction) methods. Despite these studies, in the
EMG literature the most common method used is to
analyse EMG signals only where ECG contamination
is not present in the signal [28,29].
Understanding the impacts of both contaminated
EMG and ECG elimination methods on amplitude
and frequency parameters is vital given the widespread
use of EMG. To achieve this understanding, the tech-
niques that are used need to be assessed for efficacy
and possible detrimental outcomes to measures of
EMG data. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
four current and commonly used methods for the re-
moval of ECG contamination from EMG signals.
2. Methods
2.1. Participant
One 28-year-old male (height = 1.92 m, mass =
102.3 kg) was recruited from the university population.
The participant was physically active (P4 times per
week), and had no known neuromuscular and/or heart
pathologies or abnormalities. Informed consent was ob-
tained from the participant prior to taking part in the
study. The protocol was approved by the University of
Waterloo Research Ethics and Review Committee.
2.2. Experimental design
Various levels of ECG, biceps brachii EMG and erec-
tor spinae EMG were collected separately and later the
ECG and biceps brachii EMG were superimposed to
generate known contaminated EMG signals. Four main
types of removal techniques were applied to the test sig-
nals and evaluated. The biceps brachii EMG was used as
the gold standard (or criterion measure) with which to
compare the efficacy of the removal techniques. Isomet-
ric maximum voluntary contractions (MVC) were also
collected to allow normalization of the EMG signals re-
corded from erector spinae and biceps brachii muscles.
The following sub-sections detail the skeletal muscle
and heart muscle electrical activity collection
procedures.
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187
2.2.1. Electrode placement and collection protocol
Erector spinae and biceps brachii muscle activities
and heart muscle depolarizations were collected using
three pairs of 30 mm silver–silver chloride disposable
electrodes (Medi-Trace Model 130, Kendall, MA,
USA) at a centre-to-centre distance of 30 mm [24,26].
Electrode sites were lightly shaved and cleaned with a
95% ethanol mixture. The electrodes were affixed to
the skin over the belly of the left trunk extensor muscle
(lateral to T10), and for the right biceps brachii muscle
were placed proximal to the transverse plane midline
(to avoid the innervation zone) [25] and mid-sagittally
over the muscle belly [34]. The ECG electrode pair
was affixed at the 6th costal level, medially at the sterno-
costalis junction, and mid-sagitally [26] (approximately
along the anterior axillary line [15]). This placement
approximates the V5 chest lead, and captures the heartÕs
electrical activity in the horizontal plane similar to a
standard 12-lead ECG collection system [15]. This setup
produces the largest amplitude QRS complexes with the
sharpest shape and as such is representative of maxi-
mum potential interference to the EMG signal [15]. A
reference electrode was placed on the left clavicle. Tape
(3M Transpore Surgical Tape Model 1527-1, 3M Health
Care, St. Paul, MN, USA, www.3m.com) was used to
ensure that the electrodes remained in place during the
tasks.
The raw EMG signals were band pass filtered from 10
to 1000 Hz, and differentially amplified (common-mode
rejection ratio 115 dB at 60 Hz, input impedance 10 GX)
to generate a maximum amplification of approximately
2 V peak-to-peak (model AMT-8, Bortec, Calgary,
AB, Canada). All of the channels were set to the same
amplification setting (gain = 1000) as determined by
the maximum gain in the biceps brachii muscle that
did not saturate the analog–digital (A/D) conversion
system. The EMG signals were A/D converted at
4096 samples/second using a 12 bit A/D card with a
±2.5 V range.
2.2.2. Maximum voluntary contractions
A rest trial and two MVC tasks were performed
against isometric resistance prior to data collection.
The MVC trials permitted EMG normalization of both
muscle groups. The 10 s rest trial, representing baseline
muscle activation, was collected with the participant ly-
ing prone with his arms at his sides. The biceps brachii
rest trial EMG was carefully examined (visually) to en-
sure that heart rate contamination in the signal was ab-
sent prior to collecting the remaining contractions. The
MVC protocol, to obtain maximal erector spinae muscle
activation, has been previously reported in McGill [19].
Briefly, to elicit maximal extensor muscle activity the
participant cantilevered his trunk over the edge of a
bench at the anterior superior iliac spine level, and then
attempted to extend against external resistance. The bi-
177
cep brachii muscle MVC was collected through the use
of a wrist cuff attached to an instrumented cable (Schae-
ritz Force Transducer, Model FTA-IU-200, 1981)
bolted to the floor. The participantÕs elbow angle was
maintained at 90°. The mandatory minimum rest time
between trials was 3 min. The participant was free to
control the duration of additional rest time. Total rest
time was less than 5 min in each case.
2.2.3. Tasks
The tasks involved the collection of EMG and ECG
during isometric and isoinertial contraction of the biceps
brachii muscle. The participant exerted force on a wrist
cuff attached to a force transducer anchored to the floor.
Visual feedback was provided (Daytronic, Model 300 D
Transducer Amplifier-Indicator (1972), Dayton, OH,
USA) to maintain the target force level for the 10 s trial
duration. The levels of isometric contraction included
rest, 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, and 75% of the force
generated during the participantÕs biceps brachii muscle
maximum voluntary force trial. The baseline bias of
each signal was subtracted prior to conversion to per-
cent MVC, thereby removing any bias that was in the
signals. The levels of maximum voluntary force EMG
signals corresponded to 0.74%, 10.1%, 13.0%, 15.6%,
24.7%, 58.5%, and 81.3% of the MVC EMG. The isoin-
ertial contractions involved performing bicep curls for
10 s (two curls of 2 s flexion and 2 s extension with 1 s
of rest following each completed curl) with three differ-
ent weights (2.3, 6.8, and 11.4 kg). These loads when
normalized corresponded to 38.8%, 63.5%, and 91.3%
of MVC EMG. The erector spinae channel was recorded
at the same rate for all exercises to act as a check for rel-
ative ECG to EMG amplitudes.
Heart muscle depolarizations were recorded at rest
and at 50% of the participantÕs estimated maximum
heart rate (maximum heart rate = 220 age). The partic-
ipantÕs heart rate during the resting trial was equivalent
to 25% of his estimated maximum heart rate, with eight
beats in 10 s (48 beats per minute). The participant
cycled on a stationary bicycle (Monark Ergometer Mod-
el 818E, Varberg, Sweden). Visual feedback was pro-
vided to achieve and maintain the 50% maximal heart
rate level (96 beats per minute) for the 10 s trial. Due
to overlying muscle activation interference obtained
during the recording of the 50% heart rate level, the in-
ter-pulse interval was calculated from the collected trial
and was reconstructed using all of the heart depolariza-
tions (PQRST complexes) recorded during the rest trial.
2.3. Test signal generation
The two levels of ECG were systematically superim-
posed on the 11 uncontaminated biceps brachii EMG
signals (rest, isometric maximum, six isometric, and
three isoinertial levels), resulting in the creation of 22
178 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187

different test signals. The erector spinae EMG was used
as a visual comparison to ensure that the scale of the
ECG to biceps brachii EMG was realistic in the gener-
ated test signals. The detected ECG was inverted relative
to a chest recording of the ECG signal, since the electri-
cal flow of the heart depolarization is directed away
from the electrodes placed over the erector spinae mus-
cles [15]. Therefore, the ECG collected from the chest
was inverted to mimic the ECG in the contaminated
erector spinae EMG. The resting and 50% maximum
heart rate level contaminated trials were consistent with
the ratio and appearance of the heart rate contamina-
tion for the erector spinae muscle recordings.
2.4. Processing methods
Four ECG contamination removal techniques were
examined, with sub-categories such as variation in filter
cutoff, to produce 23 different methods that were subse-
quently applied to each of the contaminated signals.
The four main removal techniques are detailed below
and a delineation of the acronyms for the 23 methods is
listed in Table 1.
2.4.1. Template technique
The method used by Bartolo et al. [5,6] on diaphrag-
matic EMG is derived from the work of Bloch [10] and
Levine et al. [17]. Briefly, multiple heart rate depolariza-
tions are used to formulate both the correlation and sub-
traction templates. The correlation and subtraction
templates were formed by averaging six QRS complexes
in the rest trial. Only those complexes with a coefficient
of determination (R2) greater than or equal to 0.98 to
the first complex were incorporated, resulting in the
use of six of the eight beats in the rest trial. This ensured
that no aberrant traces were included in the templates.
The template technique cross-correlated the correlation
template with the contaminated EMG. The points of
maximal correlation identified the location of the QRS
complexes in the contaminated EMG signal. The sub-
traction template was extended out from the correlation
template to incorporate the P and T waves of the heart
depolarization event. An amplitude gating template con-
sisting of zeroes was created for the same length as the
subtraction template. The first and last point replaced
by each of the templates had to be within the value of
the signal by ±1.5 mV or the replacement was aborted.
This eliminated the introduction of a step in the EMG
signal following the removal procedure.
2.4.2. Frequency subtraction
This method used the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
[31] power spectrum of both the pure ECG and contam-
inated EMG data. The ECG FFT was subtracted from
the contaminated EMG FFT and then the cleaned
EMG signal was reconstructed using the inverse FFT
algorithm [31]. The signals consisted of 40,960 points.
The closest binary complement to 40,960 is 32,768
points (215). This method was evaluated prior to and
post signal reconstruction. The equation (Eq. (1)) used
for the inverse FFT (signal synthesis) was [31]:
X
N =2
 XN =2

2pki 2pki
x½i
¼ 
ReðX ½k
Þ cos þ 
ImðX ½k
Þ sin ;
N N
k¼0 k¼0
ð1Þ

Table 1
The four main techniques, cutoff frequencies and sub-methods are listed
Technique Description and acronym of sub-method
Cutoff Butterworth Finite impulse response
High pass filter 20 Hz BW20 (11) FIR20 (13)
30 Hz BW30 (5) FIR30 (8)
40 Hz BW40 (7) FIR40 (10)
50 Hz BW50 (15) FIR50 (18)
60 Hz BW60 (19) FIR60 (23)

Combination (high pass filter + subtraction) 20 Hz cBW20 (1) cFIR20 (2)

30 Hz cBW30 (4) cFIR30 (6)
40 Hz cBW40 (9) cFIR40 (16)
50 Hz cBW50 (17) cFIR50 (22)
60 Hz cBW60 (20) cFIR60 (14)

Subtraction Amplitude gating

Template N/A Sub (3) Gate (12)
Frequency subtraction
Frequency subtraction method N/A InvFFT (21)
The overall performance ranks, based on the average of the four performance indicators across the six contraction levels and two heart rate levels are
included in parentheses. The best two non-combination methods are italicized. Note. A lower rank equates to a better performing method for the
removal of ECG whilst preserving EMG (i.e., the worst rank is 23).
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187
where x[i] is the reconstructed signal; ReðX ½k
Þ the co-
sine wave amplitudes; ImðX ½k
Þ the sine wave ampli-
tudes; N the number of points in original binary
signal; i the index running from 0 to N  1; and k the in-
dex running from 0 to N/2.
2.4.3. High pass filtering
In accordance with the methods of Redfern et al. [26],
the finite impulse response (FIR) filter kernel was con-
structed using an 820 coefficient Hamming window
[31]. The filter kernel was designed to have the same
20 Hz transition bandwidth as the filter used by Redfern
et al. [26]. For comparison, a second-order high pass
Butterworth (BW) filter (dual passed creating a fourth-
order filter with zero phase shift) was also applied to
the data. The methods of Murphy and Robertson [20]
were used to convert a low pass digital BW filter to a
high pass digital BW filter. To ensure that the initial
unstable response characteristic of BW filters did not al-
ter the data, 2048 padding points (sampling frequency/
2) using a reflection method [30] were added at both
the beginning and end of each signal. The 10 Hz cutoff
frequency used by Redfern et al. [26] was not duplicated
in this study, since the raw data were bandpass filtered
(from 10 to 1000 Hz) during collection. Five cutoffs were
chosen for the high pass filters: 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 Hz.
2.4.4. Combination techniques
After performing the subtraction template method,
both types of digital filters were applied using each of
the five cutoff frequencies.
2.5. Assessment/comparison of processing methods
Four performance indicators were calculated from
the cleaned signals: root mean square error (RMSE),
percent difference mean power frequency (pdMPF),
and two coefficients of determination (R2). Ideal values
for the RMSE and pdMPF are zero, and for the R2
the ideal values are one. For the RMSE procedure, the
cleaned signals (time domain, mV) from the 23 methods
were full-wave rectified and low pass filtered with a sec-
ond-order dual pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff at
2.5 Hz [9] to create a linear envelope (LE) of the EMG
signals. RMSEs were calculated between the LE of the
gold standard uncontaminated biceps brachii EMG
(processed using the same procedure to create LE of
the EMG) and the cleaned EMG signals. The FFT per-
formed on the raw data was used to quantify the effect
each method had on the frequency content of resulting
EMG signals. The mean power frequency (MPF) was
calculated to capture frequency domain changes due to
processing over the 10–500 Hz range [16]. The pdMPF
performance indicator was calculated between the gold
standard MPF and each MPF of the 23 cleaning meth-
ods. From the correlation between the uncontaminated
179
EMG and cleaned signals in both the raw and LE form,
two coefficients of determination (R2) were calculated
(raw R2 and LE R2). The raw R2 and the LE R2 coeffi-
cients did not return the same order of ranking for the
cleaning methods; therefore both were incorporated into
the evaluation procedure. For the FFT subtraction
method, MPF and RMSE for the frequency spectrum
(between the pure EMG and contaminated EMG sig-
nals) were also calculated. Following signal reconstruc-
tion (inverse FFT), the RMSE, pdMPF, and raw R2
and LE R2 were calculated as detailed above.
For each contraction level, the performance indica-
tors were individually ranked from a low of 1 to a high
of 23. The ranks were then averaged and a natural log
was taken. The natural log enabled the non-parametric
distribution of the ranking to be converted into a para-
metric distribution for the analysis of variance (ANO-
VA) statistical test. A two-way ANOVA with two
repeated measures (heart rate level and cleaning meth-
od) was used to investigate the effects of the contraction
level, heart rate level, and cleaning method. A least
square means test was used to decipher contraction le-
vel–cleaning method interactions. A 95% (p = 0.05) level
of confidence was used for rejection of the null
hypothesis.
3. Results
The ECG contamination in the isometric tasks was
only visually identifiable below 25% MVC of EMG acti-
vation. The R2 values (for the raw and LE forms be-
tween the uncontaminated and contaminated EMG)
were greater than 0.981 (Table 2) for contraction levels
above the 25% MVC level. The ECG contamination
was buried at the higher contraction levels due to the rel-
ative size of the EMG to the ECG. Although the lightest
isoinertial lifting technique elicited 38.8% MVC and
alteration in the EMG signal was observed only in the
rest phases between lifts, the raw R2 values were only
0.859 and 0.938 for the raw and LE EMG, respectively.
The other two isoinertial lifting trials had raw R2 greater
than 0.967 and LE R2 values greater than 0.989, and due
to the relative size of the EMG to ECG the ECG could
not be visually identified during the rest phases of the
tasks. The pdMPF and RSME values support the visual
assessment and R2 values used to identify the trials
requiring ECG removal for both the isometric and isoin-
ertial tasks (Table 2). Therefore, the effects of the clean-
ing techniques were evaluated for the rest, 10.1%, 13.0%,
15.6%, and 24.7% MVC isometric hold trials, and the
38.8% MVC isoinertial trial. Also, Table 2 illustrates
the amount of error and lack of correlation that would
be introduced into the EMG signal if no removal method
was employed. This suggests that a removal technique
should be employed when EMG is contaminated with
180 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187

Table 2
The comparison of the uncontaminated and contaminated EMG signals generated to demonstrate the amount of error ECG contamination can
introduce into an EMG signal if left untreated
Contraction type Muscle activation level (%MVC) Pure EMG signal relative to an ECG contaminated EMG signal
RMSE pdMPF Raw R2 LE R2
Isometric holds Rest (0.74) 25.47 54.81 0.003 0.089
10.1 15.62 30.42 0.569 0.217
13.0 15.14 25.43 0.647 0.309
15.6 14.17 20.68 0.731 0.459
24.7 9.07 11.84 0.869 0.767
58.5 8.24 1.16 0.981 0.988
81.3 8.47 0.82 0.992 0.998
100 12.09 0.92 0.993 0.999
Isoinertial lifts 38.8 16.81 12.94 0.859 0.938
63.5 16.37 4.12 0.967 0.989
91.3 10.46 1.81 0.985 0.998
Root mean square error (RMSE) of the LE EMG, percent difference mean power frequency (pdMPF), and the coefficients of determination (R2) of
the raw and LE EMG calculated between the uncontaminated and contaminated EMG signals (resting heart rate contamination). Removal
techniques were not applied to the bold italicized trials.

ECG. The maximum RMSE and pdMPF values, and
lowest raw R2 and LE R2 values were 25.47, 54.81%,
0.003, and 0.089, respectively at the rest level. The
majority of the resting ECG signal power spanned from
approximately 5 to 40 Hz with a mean power frequency
of 28.9 Hz.
There was a significant interaction between the con-
traction level and cleaning method (p < 0.0001). A
plus–minus score based on the least square mean prob-
abilities was used to assess the 23 cleaning methods per
EMG level. For each method, this plus–minus score was
calculated by subtracting the number of methods it was
statistically less than from the number of methods it
was statistically greater than. This score provides a rela-
tive performance of each method for each contraction
level. The methods not statistically different from the
top plus–minus scored method are listed in Table 3 for
each EMG level greater than 10% MVC (rank out of
13 included in brackets). For the rest trial, only the five
highest methods (rank out of 23 included in brackets)
are presented since 11 methods were not statistically dif-
ferent from the top scored method (remaining six meth-
ods simply listed in Table 3). The subtraction method
was compared to each of the combination (subtraction
and HPF at cutoffs from 20 to 60 Hz) methods for each
EMG level to check whether any of the combinations re-
sulted in a higher score than the subtraction method
alone. The performance of the subtraction method was
either better (p < 0.043) or no different (p > 0.065) than
the 10 combination methods for the 10.1%, 13.0%,
15.6%, 24.7%, and 38.8% MVC efforts. Since their per-
formance was worse or the same as subtraction alone,
the combination methods were not included for these
contraction levels resulting in a rank out of 13. As
shown in Table 3, the subtraction and BW filter with a
30 Hz cutoff frequency (BW30) methods were consis-
tently highly ranked when there was at least 10% muscle
activation. A detailed view of the performance of the
subtraction and BW30 methods on the raw EMG signal
is depicted in Fig. 1(a) and (b), whereas a gross view
comparing these methods to both the uncontaminated
and contaminated raw EMG signals is presented in
Fig. 2(a)–(d). The best method identified for the rest trial
was cFIR50. This was a combination of the subtraction
and FIR (with cutoff frequency of 50 Hz) methods.
Overall, cFIR50 was ranked 11th out of the 23 methods.
For the rest EMG trial (across both levels of heart rate
contamination), a comparison of the performance indi-
cators of the subtraction and BW30 methods to cFIR50
and the contaminated EMG signal (Fig. 3) shows that
BW30 outperforms the subtraction method. The MPF
values from the frequency subtraction technique were
not statistically different from the uncontaminated
EMG MPF values (p = 0.234). The average MPF for
the uncontaminated and cleaned signals was 47.7 ±
3.38 and 45.6 ± 0.83 Hz, respectively, across contraction
and heart rate levels. The RMSE values were 0.08 ±
0.03 between the MPF values for the uncontaminated
and cleaned EMG signals.
The individual overall ranks for each of the 23 meth-
ods, across the six contraction and two heart rate levels,
are included in parentheses in Table 1. This individual
ranking allows specific or local comparisons to be made
between the 23 methods. To highlight the differences be-
tween the four selected cleaning techniques (HPF, tem-
plate, combination, and frequency subtraction/
reconstruction), the best performing method per tech-
nique is listed by contraction level in Table 4. Each
methodÕs respective rank (per contraction level) is given
in parentheses and the performance indicators are
shaded. Overall averages of the rank and performance
indicators of the identified methods were calculated for
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187 181

Table 3
The best ECG removal methods, based on least square mean probabilities, are listed by contraction level
EMG level PI Best performing methods
Isometric hold: rest cFIR50 (13) cBW60 (12) cFIR40 (11) cBW50 (10) Gate (10)
RMSE 1.86 ± 0.15 2.35 ± 0.46 2.26 ± 0.112 2.66 ± 0.593 1.86 ± 0.005
pdMPF 6.99 ± 6.07 12.5 ± 0.76 7.50 ± 8.41 15.4 ± 0.656 43.0 ± 6.77
Raw R2 0.09 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.01 0.079 ± 0.002 0.092 ± 0.013 0.13 ± 0.01
LE R2 0.05 ± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.01 0.057 ± 0.012 0.055 ± 8E  5 0.06 ± 0.07
Other methods: BW60 (10), FIR60 (10), cBW40 (10), FIR50 (10), BW50 (10), cFIR60 (9),
cFIR30 (8)
Isometric hold: 10.1% MVC BW30 (8) BW40 (7) Sub (7) FIR40 (6) FIR30 (6)
RMSE 7.13 ± 1.56 5.91 ± 0.10 3.88 ± 0.49 12.0 ± 0.001 7.17 ± 0.39
pdMPF 2.82 ± 3.55 11.3 ± 2.53 12.4 ± 5.66 11.6 ± 1.26 4.02 ± 3.60
Raw R2 0.82 ± 0.06 0.82 ± 0.03 0.84 ± 0.07 0.81 ± 0.04 0.74 ± 0.09
LE R2 0.84 ± 0.06 0.87 ± 0.01 0.76 ± 0.09 0.80 ± 0.03 0.54 ± 0.13
Isometric hold: 13.0% MVC Sub (12) BW30 (8) FIR40 (8) BW40 (6) FIR30 (5)
RMSE 3.79 ± 0.30 7.80 ± 1.80 10.5 ± 5.85 10.7 ± 5.63 7.55 ± 2.15
pdMPF 13.1 ± 9.53 5.35 ± 1.52 6.76 ± 7.04 12.0 ± 1.64 4.60 ± 6.46
Raw R2 0.88 ± 0.06 0.84 ± 0.05 0.82 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.03 0.78 ± 0.09
LE R2 0.83 ± 0.03 0.86 ± 0.02 0.88 ± 0.01 0.86 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.02
Isometric hold: 15.6% MVC Sub (8) BW30 (8) BW40 (5) FIR30 (4) FIR40 (4)
RMSE 4.06 ± 0.06 6.17 ± 0.54 7.26 ± 0.37 10.9 ± 0.02 18.0 ± 0.39
pdMPF 6.36 ± 3.35 6.20 ± 2.46 12.3 ± 1.48 1.68 ± 0.07 11.8 ± 0.71
Raw R2 0.91 ± 0.04 0.87 ± 0.04 0.83 ± 0.02 0.83 ± 0.06 0.84 ± 0.03
LE R2 0.94 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.002 0.95 ± 0.006 0.85 ± 0.04 0.95 ± 0.01
Isometric hold: 24.7% MVC Sub (8) BW20 (8) BW30 (8) FIR30 (5) FIR20 (5)
RMSE 5.41 ± 0.47 9.47 ± 2.03 8.33 ± 0.36 16.5 ± 0.40 7.26 ± 0.19
pdMPF 2.95 ± 1.65 1.97 ± 1.38 4.14 ± 5.85 2.12 ± 1.28 8.22 ± 4.24
Raw R2 0.96 ± 0.02 0.91 ± 0.04 0.92 ± 0.02 0.90 ± 0.03 0.86 ± 0.06
LE R2 0.87 ± 0.13 0.93 ± 0.05 0.84 ± 0.13 0.85 ± 0.05 0.88 ± 0.07
Isoinertial lift: 38.8% MVC Sub (8) BW30 (5) Gate (5) BW40 (5) BW20 (5)
RMSE 7.50 ± 1.59 11.1 ± 0.56 21.1 ± 20.0 13.6 ± 0.27 16.1 ± 3.29
pdMPF 2.47 ± 2.50 6.49 ± 0.85 0.53 ± 0.12 14.1 ± 0.03 2.23 ± 2.07
Raw R2 0.88 ± 0.07 0.85 ± 0.09 0.81 ± 0.18 0.78 ± 0.09 0.86 ± 0.11
LE R2 0.96 ± 0.04 0.97 ± 0.02 0.67 ± 0.46 0.96 ± 0.03 0.88 ± 0.14
The highest possible plus–minus score (in brackets) for the rest condition is 23 and for the other five EMG levels are 13. The plus–minus score
indicates the number of methods each outperformed in removing ECG while preserving EMG. A higher plus–minus score equates to a better
performance. If a method were 100% effective at removing ECG without detriment to the EMG, the values would be 0 for RMSE and pdMPF, and 1
for the coefficients of determination (R2).

each technique across all of the contraction and heart
rate levels. These overall averages demonstrate the glo-
bal differences in abilities to remove ECG and preserve
EMG among the methods (Table 4). The increasing or-
der of average error for the four performance indicators
for each of the sub-divided main techniques is combina-
tion, BW, subtraction/FIR/Gating, and frequency sub-
traction/reconstruction.
4. Discussion
The subtraction and BW30 HPF cleaning methods
when applied to EMG activation levels between 10%
and 25% MVC yielded a balance between maximal
ECG removal and minimal EMG distortion. The com-
bination method may seem like the optimal choice from
the global average rankings presented in Table 4. Con-
sidering that there is no statistical improvement between
the performance of the subtraction method and the
combination methods, the added HPF is not required.
The importance of choosing the appropriate method in
accordance with the intent of the data cannot be over-
stated. Despite the frequency subtraction methodÕs supe-
rior performance for the frequency domain performance
indicator (pdMPF), the time domain performance indi-
cators were poor due to the reconstruction (inverse
FFT) process. But if the EMG was being used for exam-
ple as a measure of fatigue, reconstruction would not be
necessary and frequency subtraction would be the opti-
mal method to remove ECG. The FFT subtraction tech-
nique outperformed all of the other methods when
assessing the frequency domain, resulting in very low
frequency RMSE values, and among the lowest pdMPF
182 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187

20 0 PQRST Complex or reverse pass is not 100% effective at removing the

Removed phase shift induced by the first pass. Filtering alters
150
the entire signal not just the locations where a PQRST
10 0 complex resides and so FIR filters, although these do
EMG (mV)

not introduce a phase shift, would also not be appropri-

50
ate. Therefore, the time domain subtraction or ampli-
0 tude gating methods would likely be the best choice
for trunk muscle onset research. The BW30 and subtrac-
-50
tion methods would be appropriate in comparison type
-100 experiments since all of the data would be similarly pro-
0.05 s
cessed, and a relative measure obtained. Alternatively,
-150
ECG appears to be of no consequence if the partici-
Ti me BW30
-2 0 0 pantÕs muscle activation is maintained above the 25%
a Gold Std.
activation level. With the increase in attention towards
lower activation levels, and longer durations the influ-
200 PQRST Complex ence of ECG cannot be ignored.
Removed
1 50 Concerns regarding the time investment for imple-
mentation and execution of the method must be ad-
1 00
dressed. The execution times for the subtraction and
EMG (mV)

50 FIR methods were 2.5 and 4 min, respectively, per heart

0 rate/muscle activation combination using a Pentium 4
-50
-100
-150
0.05 s
-200
Time Subtraction
Gold Std.
b
Fig. 1. A detailed (0.18 s) view comparing the uncontaminated EMG
signal (Gold Standard) and the cleaned contaminated signal using the
BW30 (a) and subtraction (b) methods. The Gold Standard is in the
solid black line and the cleaning methods are in the dashed line for
both traces.
values as compared to all other methods (Table 4).
However, during the transformation of the data to the
frequency domain, the FFT removes any local charac-
teristics of the signal, so the temporal information of
the data is lost. Likewise, during the reconstruction (in-
verse FFT) of the time domain signal, the resulting
amplitudes are averaged values. Obviously, this would
not be appropriate for lifting situations or if peak ampli-
tudes are required.
Implications of this studyÕs findings regarding the re-
moval of ECG artefact suggest that ECG can be re-
moved but the underlying EMG signal will be affected.
The methods using filtering or signal reconstruction (in-
verse FFT) evaluated in this study would not be ade-
quate to determine muscle activation onset times, due
to the alterations in the signal timing created during
the treatment process. EMG onset is usually identified
once the EMG exceeds a chosen threshold value and sat-
isfies particular duration conditions. The first or forward
pass of dual pass filtering (BW filters) to remove heart
rate contamination induces a phase shift, and the second
computer, with a 1.70 GHz CPU and 256 MB RAM.
Per method, the BW filter took approximately 30 s to
execute, the frequency subtraction took approximately
15 s, and the signal reconstruction (inverse FFT) took
approximately 1 h. The subtraction template method
has the advantage of being specific for each participant.
But this specificity comes at the cost of time, since cor-
relation and subtraction templates would have to be cre-
ated individually for each participant and data
collection session. Creating the templates took approxi-
mately 2 h for the participant in this study. Although the
subtraction method is easy to implement, in a full study
the time required by this method could make it imprac-
tical. Nuances in the FIR and Hamming window algo-
rithms, such as determining appropriate bandwidth
and arrangement of data within the subroutines, make
the initial programming stages challenging. Between the
two types of HPF, the FIR filter did not remove the
ECG as well as the BW filter. With a priori knowledge
of these potential problems, and a clear understanding
of the parameters required by the data, and the equation
sources reported in this study, the difficulty is greatly re-
duced. A high sampling rate (4096 Hz) was used for a
moderate EMG collection duration (10 s). No problems
are foreseen in the application of these techniques on
longer signals or lower sampling rates, provided no sam-
pling violations occur.
Limitations of this study include the inability of the
protocol to elicit muscle activation levels between the
rest and 10.1% MVC, possible restrictions in the trans-
ference of the results, and the use of one participant.
The participant indicated that producing the 2.5% max-
imal force output level was very difficult as this output
was achieved by simply maintaining the testing posture.
Modified bicep curls using a support or un-weighted
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187 183

a Uncontaminated EMG
300

200

100
EMG (mV)
0

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

b Contaminated EMG
300

200

100
EMG (mV)

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

Fig. 2. A 4 s plot (gross view) comparing the uncontaminated EMG (a) with the ECG contaminated EMG (b), cleaned EMG using the BW30
method (c), and cleaned EMG using the subtraction method (d).

curls could decrease the activation level below 10%
MVC. Also, fatigue was not examined or present during
the tasks and so the results cannot be directly applied to
fatigue situations. Considering the consistency in the
performance of the BW30 and subtraction methods
across the 10–25% MVC range, it is likely that these
methods would be acceptable for lower level activations.
The use of biceps brachii EMG to obtain an uncontam-
inated signal may limit the transferability of the findings
to all muscle groups. Different spectral distributions of
the EMG signal for different muscle groups could alter
the effectives of some approaches such as the lowpass fil-
tering. The use of EMG data from one participant may
seem inappropriate given the inter- and intra-variability
of EMG. Araujo et al. [3] reported coefficient of vari-
ability RMS values of right and left tibialis anterior sur-
face EMG recordings from nine participants to be
21.61% for MVC trials. In this study, the coefficient of
variability of RMS values for the trials up to 38.8%
MVC was 55.38%, thereby more than doubling both
the inter- and intra-variation observed by Araujo et al.
[3]. The only differences in the surface EMG between
participants would be the ratio between the EMG and
ECG. Since the data collected spanned from rest/
10.1% MVC to 91.3% MVC, a large spectrum of ratios
between the EMG and ECG amplitudes was examined
and the resulting performances of the removal tech-
niques assessed based on their performances across dif-
ferent ratios of the two signals.
Not all reported methods of ECG contamination re-
moval for EMG were performed. Other types of ECG
removal techniques reported in the literature are the
combination methods of adaptive noise cancellation
(ANC) and event synchronous cancellation (ESC)
[1,2,14,18,32], and clipping [7]. The ANC and ESC
methods use the collection of a pure ECG signal in time
184 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187

c Cleaned with BW30 Method

300

200

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

d Cleaned Using Subtraction Method

200

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

Fig. 2 (continued )

Fig. 3. The performance indicators (PI) for the cFIR50, BW30, and subtraction methods, compared to the PIs for the contaminated rest level EMG
(across both heart rate levels). For a perfect removal of ECG, the value of the RMSE and pdMPF would be zero, and for the two correlation values
would be one. Note that although the BW30 method removes ECG statistically less effectively than the cFIR50 method, the amount of increased
error is relatively small relative to the contaminated signal values. Note. The RMSE and pdMPF values are scaled using the left Y-axis. The
coefficients of determination (R2) are scaled using the right Y-axis.
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187 185

Table 4
Comparison of the best performing (lowest error) method per technique type based on the least mean square probabilities (by muscle activation
level). The ranks, out of 23, are listed in parentheses after the method and a lower rank equates to a better performance
EMG/PI Method
High pass filtering (HPF) Template Combination Frequency
Rest FIR60 (7) BW60 (6) Sub (23) Gate (5) cFIR50 (1) InvFFT (17)
RMSE 2.49 ± 0.561 3.61 ± 0.957 12.6 ± 3.33 1.86 ± 0.005 1.86 ± 0.151 2.4 ± 0.015
pdMPF 11.4 ± 0.188 17.3 ± 0.066 54.8 ± 0.045 43.0 ± 6.77 6.99 ± 6.07 18.4 ± 6.07
Raw R2 0.062 ± 0.021 0.074 ± 0.017 0.011 ± 0.007 0.129 ± 0.013 0.090 ± 0.021 3E  4 ± 1E  4
LE R2 0.036 ± 0.037 0.052 ± 0.038 0.046 ± 0.049 0.057 ± 0.070 0.054 ± 0.033 0.017 ± 0.0079
10.1% MVC FIR40 (9) BW30 (4) Sub (6) Gate (13) cBW20 (1) InvFFT (22)
RMSE 12.0 ± 0.561 7.13 ± 1.56 3.88 ± 0.493 15.9 ± 4.07 4.71 ± 0.007 25.9 ± 1.05
pdMPF 11.6 ± 1.26 2.82 ± 3.55 12.4 ± 5.66 0.862 ± 0.241 2.09 ± 2.20 2.01 ± 0.816
Raw R2 0.815 ± 0.041 0.825 ± 0.056 0.841 ± 0.070 0.813 ± 0.092 0.908 ± 0.037 3E  6 ± 4E  6
LE R2 0.798 ± 0.032 0.842 ± 0.057 0.762 ± 0.085 0.135 ± 0.098 0.956 ± 0.005 0.013 ± 0.002
13.0% MVC FIR40 (7) BW30 (5) Sub (4) Gate (15) cBW20(1) InvFFT (22)
RMSE 10.51 ± 5.85 7.80 ± 1.80 3.79 ± 0.297 16.8 ± 4.51 4.04 ± 0.302 28.6 ± 0.863
pdMPF 6.76 ± 7.04 5.35 ± 1.52 13.1 ± 9.54 9.16 ± 12.7 8.00 ± 5.87 1.52 ± 1.30
Raw R2 0.816 ± 0.040 0.839 ± 0.055 0.876 ± 0.057 0.837 ± 0.081 0.921 ± 0.032 5E  5 ± 2E  5
LE R2 0.878 ± 0.009 0.865 ± 0.021 0.833 ± 0.031 0312 ± 0.198 0.946 ± 0.028 0.223 ± 0.004
15.6% MVC FIR30 (8) BW30 (4) Sub (2) Gate (12) cBW20 (1) InvFFT (21)
RMSE 10.9 ± 0.018 6.17 ± 0.539 4.06 ± 0.060 20.5 ± 4.77 4.73 ± 0.107 34.3 ± 0.679
pdMPF 1.68 ± 0.066 6.20 ± 2.46 6.36 ± 3.35 0.732 ± 1.02 3.81 ± 1.02 1.65 ± 0.908
Raw R2 0.832 ± 0.063 0.872 ± 0.038 0.913 ± 0.044 0.829 ± 0.074 0.941 ± 0.024 1E  5 ± 6E  6
LE R2 0.848 ± 0.041 0.957 ± 0.002 0.943 ± 0.006 0.386 ± 0.059 0.972 ± 0.007 0.071 ± 0.009
24.7% MVC FIR30 (7) BW20 (4) Sub (2) Gate (13) cBW20 (1) InvFFT (19)
RMSE 16.5 ± 0.404 9.47 ± 2.03 5.41 ± 0.476 31.4 ± 9.29 8.78 ± 0.350 54.0 ± 0.027
pdMPF 2.12 ± 1.28 1.97 ± 1.38 2.95 ± 1.65 0.436 ± 0.235 3.98 ± 0.373 1.77 ± 0.630
Raw R2 0.903 ± 0.028 0.911 ± 0.036 0.960 ± 0.019 0.822 ± 0.106 0.964 ± 0.011 0.387 ± 0.548
LE R2 0.848 ± 0.048 0.932 ± 0.054 0.870 ± 0.135 0.117 ± 0.304 0.963 ± 0.032 0.024 ± 0.008
38.8% MVC FIR30 (9) BW30 (4) Sub (1) Gate (5) cBW20 (2) InvFFT (20)
RMSE 17.5 ± 0.153 11.1 ± 0.562 7.50 ± 1.59 21.1 ± 20.0 6.73 ± 1.52 77.6 ± 2.45
pdMPF 6.39 ± 7.78 6.49 ± 0.852 2.47 ± 2.50 0.529 ± 0.121 4.78 ± 1.04 0.561 ± 0.010
Raw R2 0.844 ± 0.041 0.849 ± 0.091 0.885 ± 0.071 0.813 ± 0.183 0.611 ± 0.186 6E  6 ± 2E  7
LE R2 0.900 ± 0.114 0.972 ± 0.022 0.965 ± 0.037 0.668 ± 0.457 0.981 ± 0.020 0.046 ± 0.044
Over all average rank 7.83 ± 0.983 4.50 ± 0.837 6.33 ± 8.36 10.5 ± 4.37 1.17 ± 0.408 20.2 ± 1.94
RMSE 11.7 ± 5.36 7.55 ± 2.62 6.21 ± 3.44 17.9 ± 9.62 5.14 ± 2.37 37.2 ± 25.9
pdMPF 6.67 ± 4.31 6.69 ± 5.52 15.3 ± 19.8 9.13 ± 17.0 4.94 ± 2.19 4.29 ± 6.86
Raw R2 0.712 ± 0.320 0.728 ± 0.322 0.747 ± 0.363 0.707 ± 0.284 0.739 ± 0.344 0.065 ± 0.158
LE R2 0.718 ± 0.336 0.770 ± 0.355 0.734 ± 0.346 0.279 ± 0.228 0.812 ± 0.372 0.066 ± 0.080
Note. The average rank is the average of the ranks of the methods listed in this table.

with the collection of other channels. The ECG signal is
then subtracted from the collected contaminated EMG
signals followed by an automatic adaptive filtering
method [1,2,14,18,32]. Since the test signals were created
by superimposing the pure ECG and EMG signals, sub-
traction of the ECG signal would result in 100% efficacy
of this method, which could be misleading. Although,
the ANC and ESC methods have been reported to re-
quire less time to create the templates (both use algo-
rithms to automatically detect QRS complexes) and
complete the replacement and filtering processes (based
on surpassing a selected threshold level) than the tem-
plate techniques in this study, the procedures must still
be monitored to ensure accurate application of the algo-
rithms [1,2,14,32]. Clipping methods can only be applied
when the ECG amplitude is larger than the EMG ampli-
tude, and involve truncating the ECG when a set thresh-
old value is breached. This method is obviously limited
to time domain analyses due to the introduction of false
frequencies by the truncation process. Schweitzer et al.
[27] stated that the resulting square waves introduce a
greater source of error in the frequency domain than
the ECG the clipping method is trying to remove. Fur-
ther, Black and Lovely [7] found that amplitude gating
methods were more effective at ECG removal than both
the ANC and clipping methods on both fabricated and
experimental contaminated EMG signals. In this study,
the subtraction and BW30 methods were found to
186 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187
remove ECG better than the gating method. The use of
wavelets has been shown to be effective in the removal of
motion artefact [13,22,23], but has yet to be assessed as
an ECG removal method. Pope et al. [23] reported that
wavelets are a good method for the demodulation of
EMG, for the purpose of retaining the information
associated with neural functioning while discarding all
other information. The use of wavelets to denoise
EMG signals has had limited use, but may provide a
superior method for ECG removal [8,21]. The adoption
of wavelet analyses as the elite method for removing
ECG contamination in the future will be dependent on
the time required during the design and implementation
stages. Again, the particular experimental question will
dictate the use of the various EMG signal analysis
techniques.
Further experimentation on other muscle groups is
required to ensure the robustness of this studyÕs out-
comes. Nonetheless, the results of this study are consis-
tent with previous comparison studies that have been
performed. Bartolo et al. [5] found that the subtraction
technique was superior to the amplitude gating tech-
nique. Redfern et al. [26] demonstrated that a high pass
digital FIR filter with a 30 Hz cutoff outperformed the
same filter using a 60 Hz cutoff for both abdominal
and back extensor muscle groups. The use of a HPF
with a 30 Hz cutoff was supported by this study for
the signals in the 10–25% MVC range, however, the
BW filters were found to outperform the FIR filters.
Schweitzer et al. [27] suggested the use of high pass fil-
ters with 50–60 Hz cutoffs based on analyses with dia-
phragmatic EMG data. These cutoffs mirror the top
methods for the rest condition in this study. Still, it is
crucial to consider the potentially deleterious effect such
a high cutoff will have on the bandwidth of the EMG
signal, and that the higher cutoff frequencies did not per-
form as well when considered across all contraction lev-
els. Recently, Potvin and Brown [25] probed methods to
improve force estimates from EMG data. These
researchers suggest that the information linking muscle
activation to force production may reside in the higher
EMG frequencies, requiring high pass filtering at a
440Hz cutoff frequency. If this approach proves to be
effective, the methods described in this study would be
unnecessary when estimating muscle force from EMG
data since all ECG content would be removed by the
highpass filter.
Therefore, depending on the intent of the investiga-
tion a high pass filter, amplitude and/or frequency sub-
traction methods can be applied to the data. Given that
in most experimental investigations of human move-
ment, the muscle activations will likely exceed resting
levels, and that BW30 is easily implemented, performs
satisfactory at rest and excellent at all other levels of per-
cent MVC evaluated in this study, BW30 appears to be
the best option for removing ECG contamination in
EMG. The FIR and BW filters are more transferable
to new data relative to the subtraction method, since
the template subtraction method requires customized
correlation and subtraction templates for each partici-
pant. Therefore, when the time investment (initial pro-
gramming and for execution) is considered with the
performance of the removal methods, the BW HPF with
30 Hz cutoff becomes the optimal and practical choice
for ECG removal.
5. Conclusion
This study supported the findings of the Redfern
et al. [26] and Bartolo et al. [5] investigations, and dem-
onstrated that the BW HPF with a 30 Hz cutoff has the
optimal balance between ease of implementation, time
investment, and performance.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Natural Science and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada (NSERC) for their financial
support. Dr. Jack P. Callaghan is supported by a Can-
ada Research Chair in Spine Biomechanics and Injury
Prevention. Janessa Drake is supported by a Canadian
Institute for the Relief of Pain and Disability
(CIRPD)/Canadian Institutes of Health Research
(CIHR) Doctoral Research Award.
References
[1] P. Akkiraju, D.C. Reddy, Adaptive cancellation technique in
processing myoelectric activity of respiratory muscles, IEEE
Trans. Biomed. Eng 39 (1992) 652–655.
[2] K. Aminian, C. Ruffieux, P. Robert, Filtering by adaptive
sampling (FAS), Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 26 (1988) 658–662.
[3] R.C. Araujo, M. Duarte, A.C. Amadio, On the inter- and intra-
subject variability of the electromyographic signal in isometric
contractions, Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 40 (2000) 225–
229.
[4] R.V. Baratta, M. Solomonow, B.H. Zhou, M. Zhu, Methods to
reduce the variability of EMG power spectrum estimates, J.
Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 8 (1998) 279–285.
[5] A. Bartolo, C. Roberts, R.R. Dzwonczyk, E. Goldman, Analysis
of diaphragm EMG signals: comparison of gating vs. subtraction
for removal of ECG contamination, J. Appl. Physiol. 80 (1996)
1898–1902.
[6] A. Bartolo, R.R. Dzwonczyk, C. Roberts, E. Goldman, Descrip-
tion and validation of a technique for the removal of ECG
contamination from diaphragmatic EMG signal, Med. Biol. Eng.
Comput. 34 (1996) 76–81.
[7] J.S. Black, D.F. Lovely, A comparison of ECG cancellation
techniques applied to the surface recording of somatosensory
evoked potentials, Med. Eng. Phys. 19 (1997) 279–285.
[8] R. Bluthner, H. Seidel, B. Hinz, Examination of the myoelectric
activity of back muscles during random vibration–methodical
approach and first results, Clin. Biomech. 16 (Suppl. 1) (2001)
S25–S30.
 J.D.M. Drake, J.P. Callaghan / Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 16 (2006) 175–187
[9] L.C. Brereton, S.M. McGill, Frequency response of spine exten-
sors during rapid isometric contractions: effects of muscle length
and tension, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 8 (1998) 227–232.
[10] R. Bloch, Subtraction of electrocardiographic signal from respi-
ratory electromyogram, J. Appl. Physiol. 55 (1983) 619–623.
[11] I.I. Christov, I.K. Daskalov, Filtering of electromyogram artifacts
from the electrocardiogram, Med. Eng. Phys. 21 (1999) 731–736.
[12] E.A. Clancy, E.L. Morin, R. Merletti, Sampling, Noise-reduction
and amplitude estimation issues in surface electromyography, J.
Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 12 (2002) 1–16.
[13] S. Conforto, T. DÕAlessio, S. Pignatelli, Optimal rejection of
movement artefacts from myoelectric signals by means of a
wavelet filtering procedure, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 9 (1999)
47–57.
[14] Y. Deng, W. Wolf, R. Schnell, U. Appel, New aspects to event-
synchronous cancellation of ECG interference: an application of
the method in diaphragmatic EMG signals, IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng 47 (2000) 1177–1184.
[15] A.C. Guyton, J.E. Hall, Textbook of Medical Physiology, nineth
ed., W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1996.
[16] D. Hary, M.J. Belman, J. Propst, S. Lewis, A statistical analysis
of the spectral moments used in EMG tests of endurance, J. Appl.
Physiol. 53 (1982) 779–783.
[17] S. Levine, J. Gillen, P. Weiser, M. Gillen, E. Kwatny, Description
and validation of an ECG removal procedure for EMGdi power
spectrum analysis, J. Appl. Physiol. 60 (1986) 1073–1081.
[18] C. Marque, C. Bisch, R. Dantas, S. Elayoubi, V. Brosse, C.
Pérot, Adaptive filtering for ECG rejection from surface EMG
recordings, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 15 (2005) 310–315.
[19] S.M. McGill, 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. 9 (1991) 91–103.
[20] S.D. Murphy, G.E. Robertson, Construction of a high-pass
digital filter from a low-pass digital filter, J. Appl. Biomech. 10
(1994) 374–381.
[21] N. Nikolaev, A. Gotchev, K. Egiazarian, Z. Nikolov, Suppression
of electromyogram interference on the electrocardiogram by
transform domain denoising, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 39
(2001) 649–655.
[22] R.L. Ortolan, R.N. Mori, R.R. Pereira, C.M. Cabral, J.C.
Pereira, A.J. Cliquet, Evaluation of adaptive/nonadaptive filtering
and wavelet transform techniques for noise reduction in EMG
mobile acquisition equipment, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil.
Eng. 11 (2003) 60–69.
[23] M.H. Pope, A. Aleksiev, N.D. Panagiotacopulos, J.S. Lee, D.G.
Wilder, K. Friesen, W. Stielau, V.K. Goel, Evaluation of low
back muscle surface EMG signals using wavelets, Clin. Biomech.
15 (2000) 567–573.
[24] J.R. Potvin, Effects of muscle kinematics on surface EMG
amplitude and frequency during fatiguing dynamic contractions,
J. Appl. Physiol. 82 (1997) 144–151.
[25] J.R. Potvin, S.H.M. Brown, Less is more: high pass filtering, to
remove up to 99% of the surface EMG signal power, improves
EMG-based biceps brachii muscle force estimates, J. Electro-
myogr. Kinesiol. 14 (2004) 389–399.
[26] M.S. Redfern, R.E. Hughes, D.B. Chaffin, High-pass filtering to
remove electrocardiographic interference from torso EMG
recordings, Clin. Biomech. 8 (1993) 44–48.
187
[27] T.W. Schweitzer, J.W. Fitzgerald, J.A. Bowden, P. Lynne-Davies,
Spectral analysis of human inspiratory diaphragmatic electromy-
ograms, J. Appl. Physiol. 46 (1979) 152–165.
[28] C.A. Sinderby, J.C. Beck, L.H. Lindstrom, A.E. Grassino,
Enhancement of signal quality in esophageal recordings of
diaphragm EMG, J. Appl. Physiol. 82 (1997) 1370–1377.
[29] J.H. Skotte, N. Fallentin, M.T. Pedersen, M. Essendrop, J. Strøyer,
B. Schibye, Adaptation to sudden unexpected loading of the low
back – the effects of repeated trials, J. Biomech. 37 (2004) 1483–
1489.
[30] G. Smith, Padding point extrapolation techniques for the butter-
worth digital filter, J. Biomech. 22 (1989) 967–971.
[31] S.W. Smith, Digital Signal Processing. A Practical Guide for
Engineers and Scientists, Newnes, Boston, 2003.
[32] B. Widrow, J.R. Glover Jr., J.M. McCool, J. Kaunitz, C.S.
Williams, R.H. Hearn, J.R. Zeidler, E. Dong Jr., R.C. Goodlin,
Adaptive noise canceling: principles and applications, IEEE
Trans. Biomed. Eng. 63 (1975) 1692–1716.
[33] D.A. Winter, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human
Movement, second ed., Wiley, Toronto, 1990.
[34] P. Zipp, Recommendations for the standardization of lead positions
in surface electromyography, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 50 (1982) 41–54.
Jack P. Callaghan received his PhD in
Kinesiology from the Faculty of Applied
Health Sciences at the University of
Waterloo in 1999. From 1998 to 2003 he
was a faculty member in the Department of
Human Biology at the University of
Guelph. In 2003, he was awarded a Canada
Research Chair in Spine Biomechanics and
Injury Prevention and returned to the
Kinesiology Department at the University
of Waterloo. He has also received an
Ontario Distinguished Researcher Award,
and a Canada Foundation for Innovation infrastructure grant. He is a
project leader in the AUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence and
an NSERC funded researcher. His main research interest is injury
mechanisms from exposure to cumulative loading exposure. He has
just completed an invited book chapter, the first to discuss the theo-
retical and practical implications of using cumulative exposure as an
injury prevention strategy. He is an author on 30 peer reviewed journal
articles, has presented over 40 papers at conferences and supervised 10
graduate students.
Janessa Drake received a B.Sc. (1998) in
Human Kinetics and M.Sc. (2001) in Bio-
mechanics from the University of Guelph.
She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the
Kinesiology Department at the University
of Waterloo conducting research in the area
of spine biomechanics. She is interested in
the injury and pain pathways associated
with chronic multiple axis exposures of the
spine. JanessaÕs thesis research combines a
fundamental in-vitro approach, examining
the time varying response of the lumbar
spine tissues, with in-vivo human research, examining biological
responses to cumulative loading exposure.