 |
|
Artifacts and Normal Variations in Human Ocular Electromyography
ARTHUR JAMPOLSKY, M.D.;
EDWARD TAMLER, M.D.;
ELWIN MARG, Ph.D.
AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1959;61(3):402-413.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Sir Francis Walshe, in discussing "The Future of Neurology" at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine, stated his conviction that "a fruitful future for neurology lay rather with experimental pathology than with electrophysiological studies. In the case of the latter, it seemed that many studies revealed more about the properties of the apparatus used than of the functions of the nervous system."1
Thus, whenever a relatively new technique involving complicated apparatus, such as ocular electromyography, is introduced, one must establish normal ranges for proper interpretation of the results. More important, one must be able to distinguish artifacts from meaningful data.
A previous publication2 outlines the technique of human electromyography. The purpose of this paper is to point out (A), normal variations of ocular electromyography, and (B), artifacts in electromyography. Because of these normal variations and artifacts, we shall, in our discussion, point out some limitations
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
San Francisco; Berkeley, Calif.
From the Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, San Francisco (Drs. Jampolsky and Tamler); School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. (Dr. Marg).
Footnotes
Submitted for publication Aug. 5, 1958.
This work was supported by ONR Contract 225(20) and USPHS Grant B686.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
