Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Overview of electromyography

Steven H Horowitz, MD
Section Editor
Jeremy M Shefner, MD, PhD
Deputy Editor
John F Dashe, MD, PhD


Electromyography (EMG) is the clinical study of the electrical activity of muscle fibers individually and collectively. This electrical activity can be recorded via surface or needle electrodes, the latter being used far more commonly in the clinical setting, and is evaluated during needle insertion, during periods of rest (spontaneous activity), and during periods of voluntary muscle contraction [1].

This topic will review the basic principles of EMG. Detailed discussions of the clinical utility of EMG are presented separately in topic reviews relating to specific diseases. Nerve conductions studies are discussed elsewhere. (See "Overview of nerve conduction studies" and "Nerve conduction studies: Late responses".)


Needle electrodes measure the electric potential difference between two sites. They are usually monopolar or concentric [1].

With the monopolar electrode, the needle serves as the active recording site, and a surface electrode some distance away serves as the reference electrode

In the concentric electrode, which looks like a hypodermic needle, a fine wire in the center serves as the active electrode, with the needle cannula as the reference

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Jan 24, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Daube JR, Rubin DI. Needle electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2009; 39:244.
  2. Liddell EG, Sherrington CS. Recruitment and some other factors of reflex inhibition. Proc R Soc Lond (Biol) 1925; 97:488.
  3. FEINSTEIN B, LINDEGARD B, NYMAN E, WOHLFART G. Morphologic studies of motor units in normal human muscles. Acta Anat (Basel) 1955; 23:127.
  4. Buchthal F. The general concept of the motor unit. Res Publ Ass Nerv Ment Dis 1961; 38:3.
  5. Bodine-Fowler S, Garfinkel A, Roy RR, Edgerton VR. Spatial distribution of muscle fibers within the territory of a motor unit. Muscle Nerve 1990; 13:1133.
  6. Dumitru D. Physiologic basis of potentials recorded in electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2000; 23:1667.
  8. Lukács M, Vécsei L, Beniczky S. Fiber density of the motor units recruited at high and low force output. Muscle Nerve 2009; 40:112.
  9. Buchthal F. Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology: Electromyography, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1973. Vol 16.
  10. Brownell AA, Bromberg MB. Optimizing acquisition time in quantitative electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2009; 40:371.
  11. Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle, 3rd ed, Oxford Univ Press, Oxford 2001. p.315.
  12. Barkhaus, PE, Nandedkar, SD. EMG evaluation of the motor unit - electrophysiologic biopsy. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1141905-overview (Accessed on December 17, 2009).
  13. SACCO G, BUCHTHAL F, ROSENFALCK P. Motor unit potentials at different ages. Arch Neurol 1962; 6:366.
  14. Rosenfalck, P, Rosenfalck, A. Electromyography and sensory and motor conduction findings in normal subjects. Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, 1975.
  15. Stålberg EV, Sonoo M. Assessment of variability in the shape of the motor unit action potential, the "jiggle," at consecutive discharges. Muscle Nerve 1994; 17:1135.
  16. Hourigan ML, McKinnon NB, Johnson M, et al. Increased motor unit potential shape variability across consecutive motor unit discharges in the tibialis anterior and vastus medialis muscles of healthy older subjects. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126:2381.
  17. Allen MD, Stashuk DW, Kimpinski K, et al. Increased neuromuscular transmission instability and motor unit remodelling with diabetic neuropathy as assessed using novel near fibre motor unit potential parameters. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126:794.
  18. Abdelmaseeh M, Smith B, Stashuk D. Feature selection for motor unit potential train characterization. Muscle Nerve 2014; 49:680.
  19. Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001. p.355.
  20. Buchthal F, Rosenfalck P. Spontaneous electrical activity of human muscle. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1966; 20:321.
  21. Nandedkar SD, Barkhaus PE, Sanders DB, Stalberg EV. Some observations on fibrillations and positive sharp waves. Muscle Nerve 2000; 23:888.
  22. Dumitru D, Martinez CT. Propagated insertional activity: a model of positive sharp wave generation. Muscle Nerve 2006; 34:457.
  23. Dumitru D, Santa Maria DL. Positive sharp wave origin: evidence supporting the electrode initiation hypothesis. Muscle Nerve 2007; 36:349.
  24. Fellows LK, Foster BJ, Chalk CH. Clinical significance of complex repetitive discharges: A case-control study. Muscle Nerve 2003; 28:504.
  25. Miller TM. Differential diagnosis of myotonic disorders. Muscle Nerve 2008; 37:293.
  26. Shah DU, Darras BT, Markowitz JA, et al. The spectrum of myotonic and myopathic disorders in a pediatric electromyography laboratory over 12 years. Pediatr Neurol 2012; 47:97.
  27. Hanisch F, Kraya T, Kornhuber M, Zierz S. Diagnostic impact of myotonic discharges in myofibrillar myopathies. Muscle Nerve 2013; 47:845.
  28. de Carvalho M, Swash M. Origin of fasciculations in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and benign fasciculation syndrome. JAMA Neurol 2013; 70:1562.
  29. Rosenfalck P, Rosenfalck A. Electromyography and sensory and motor conduction findings in normal subjects, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen 1975.
  30. Gutmann L. AAEM minimonograph #37: facial and limb myokymia. Muscle Nerve 1991; 14:1043.
  31. Gutmann L, Libell D, Gutmann L. When is myokymia neuromyotonia? Muscle Nerve 2001; 24:151.
  32. Ahmed A, Simmons Z. Isaacs syndrome: A review. Muscle Nerve 2015; 52:5.
  33. Miller KC, Knight KL. Electrical stimulation cramp threshold frequency correlates well with the occurrence of skeletal muscle cramps. Muscle Nerve 2009; 39:364.
  34. Piotrkiewicz M, Kudina L, Mierzejewska J, Hausmanowa-Petrusewicz I. Analysis of double discharges in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve 2008; 38:845.
  35. Dumitru D. Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Hanley & Belfus, Philadelphia 1995. p.238.
  36. WOHLFART G. Collateral regeneration in partially denervated muscles. Neurology 1958; 8:175.
  37. Kugelberg E, Edström L, Abbruzzese M. Mapping of motor units in experimentally reinnervated rat muscle. Interpretation of histochemical and atrophic fibre patterns in neurogenic lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1970; 33:319.
  38. ERMINIO F, BUCHTHAL F, ROSENFALCK P. Motor unit territory and muscle fiber concentration in paresis due to peripheral nerve injury and anterior horn cell involvement. Neurology 1959; 9:657.
  39. Brown MC, Ironton R. Sprouting and regression of neuromuscular synapses in partially denervated mammalian muscles. J Physiol 1978; 278:325.
  40. Thompson W, Jansen JK. The extent of sprouting of remaining motor units in partly denervated immature and adult rat soleus muscle. Neuroscience 1977; 2:523.
  41. Kryściak K, Grieb P, Celichowski J. Changes in motor unit properties in SOD1 (G93A) rats. Muscle Nerve 2014; 50:577.
  42. Jokela ME, Jääskeläinen SK, Sandell S, et al. Spontaneous activity in electromyography may differentiate certain benign lower motor neuron disease forms from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2015; 355:143.
  43. London ZN. Safety and pain in electrodiagnostic studies. Muscle Nerve 2017; 55:149.
  44. London ZN, Burke JF, Hazan R, et al. Electromyography-related pain: muscle selection is the key modifiable study characteristic. Muscle Nerve 2014; 49:570.
  45. Al-Shekhlee A, Shapiro BE, Preston DC. Iatrogenic complications and risks of nerve conduction studies and needle electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2003; 27:517.
  46. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Electrical safety and iatrogenic complications. In: Electromyography and Neuromuscular Disorders: Clinical–Electrophysiologic Correlations, Third edition, Elsevier, New York 2013. p.614.
  47. Boon AJ, Gertken JT, Watson JC, et al. Hematoma risk after needle electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2012; 45:9.
  48. Gertken JT, Patel AT, Boon AJ. Electromyography and anticoagulation. PM R 2013; 5:S3.
  49. Kassardjian CD, O'gorman CM, Sorenson EJ. The risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax after electromyography. Muscle Nerve 2016; 53:518.
  50. Nandedkar SD, Sheridan C, Bertoni S, et al. Deep brain stimulator artifact in needle electromyography: effects and distribution in paraspinal and upper limb muscle. Muscle Nerve 2013; 47:561.
  51. Nardin RA, Rutkove SB, Raynor EM. Diagnostic accuracy of electrodiagnostic testing in the evaluation of weakness. Muscle Nerve 2002; 26:201.
  52. Haig AJ, Tzeng HM, LeBreck DB. The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints: a prospective comparison with the history and physical examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80:1273.
  53. Kothari MJ, Blakeslee MA, Reichwein R, et al. Electrodiagnostic studies: are they useful in clinical practice? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79:1510.
  54. Cho SC, Siao-Tick-Chong P, So YT. Clinical utility of electrodiagnostic consultation in suspected polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 2004; 30:659.
  55. So YT. The value of electromyography: toward an evidence-based use of electrodiagnostic testing. Muscle Nerve 2009; 40:171.
  56. Perry DI, Tarulli AW, Nardin RA, et al. Clinical utility of electrodiagnostic studies in the inpatient setting. Muscle Nerve 2009; 40:195.
  57. Karakis I, Liew W, Darras BT, et al. Referral and diagnostic trends in pediatric electromyography in the molecular era. Muscle Nerve 2014; 50:244.