Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: electrode selection matrix

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


  • Manuela Besomi
  • Paul W Hodges
  • Jaap Van Dieën
  • Richard G Carson
  • Edward A Clancy
  • Catherine Disselhorst-Klug
  • Aleš Holobar
  • François Hug
  • Matthew C Kiernan
  • Madeleine Lowery
  • Kevin McGill
  • Roberto Merletti
  • Eric Perreault
  • Karen Søgaard
  • Kylie Tucker
  • Thor Besier
  • Roger Enoka
  • Dario Farina
  • Simon Gandevia
  • John C Rothwell
  • Bill Vicenzino
  • Tim Wrigley

Colleges, School and Institutes

External organisations

  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute
  • Imperial College London
  • University of Queensland
  • Trinity College Dublin
  • Queen's University, Belfast
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • University of Maribor
  • Université de Nantes
  • Institut Universitaire de France (IUF)
  • University of Sydney
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
  • University College Dublin
  • Politecnico di Torino
  • Northwestern University
  • Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
  • University of Southern Denmark
  • University of Auckland
  • University of Colorado Boulder
  • University of New South Wales (UNSW)
  • University College London
  • University of Melbourne
  • US Department of Veterans Affairs


The Consensus for Experimental Design in Electromyography (CEDE) project is an international initiative which aims to guide decision-making in recording, analysis, and interpretation of electromyographic (EMG) data. The quality of the EMG recording, and validity of its interpretation depend on many characteristics of the recording set-up and analysis procedures. Different electrode types (i.e., surface and intramuscular) will influence the recorded signal and its interpretation. This report presents a matrix to consider the best electrode type selection for recording EMG, and the process undertaken to achieve consensus. Four electrode types were considered: (1) conventional surface electrode, (2) surface matrix or array electrode, (3) fine-wire electrode, and (4) needle electrode. General features, pros, and cons of each electrode type are presented first. This information is followed by recommendations for specific types of muscles, the information that can be estimated, the typical representativeness of the recording and the types of contractions for which the electrode is best suited. This matrix is intended to help researchers when selecting and reporting the electrode type in EMG studies.

Bibliographic note

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)128-144
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
Early online date19 Jul 2019
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2019


  • consensus, electrodes/standards, electromyography/instrumentation, humans, muscle, skeletal/physiology