Phasic and tonic muscle synergies are different in number, structure and sparseness.

In the last two decades, muscle synergies analysis has been commonly used to assess the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying human motor control. Several synergy models and algorithms have been employed for processing the electromyographic (EMG) signal, and it has been shown that the coordination of motor control is characterized by the presence of phasic (movement-related) and tonic (anti-gravity and related to co-contraction) EMG components. Neural substrates indicate that phasic and tonic components have non-homogeneous origin; however, it is still unclear if these components are generated by the same set of synergies or by distinct synergies. This study aims at testing whether phasic and tonic components are generated by distinct phasic and tonic synergies or by the same set of synergies with phasic and tonic activation coefficients. The study also aims at characterizing the differences between the phasic and the tonic synergies. Using a comprehensive mapping of upper-limb point-to-point movements, synergies were extracted from phasic and tonic EMG signal separately, estimating the tonic components with a linear ramp model. The goodness of reconstruction (R) as a function of the number of synergies was compared, and sets of synergies extracted from each dataset at three R threshold levels (0.80, 0.85, 0.90) were retained for further analysis. Then, shared, phasic-specific, and tonic-specific synergies were extracted from the two datasets concatenated. The dimensionality of the synergies shared between the phasic and the tonic datasets was estimated with a bootstrap procedure based on the evaluation of the distribution of principal angles between the subspaces spanned by phasic and tonic synergies due to noise. We found only few shared synergies, indicating that phasic and tonic synergies have in general different structures. To compare consistent differences in synergy composition, shared, phasic-specific, and tonic-specific synergies were clustered separately. Phasic-specific clusters were more numerous than tonic-specific ones, suggesting that they were more differentiated among subjects. The structure of phasic clusters and the higher sparseness indicated that phasic synergies capture specific muscle activation patterns related to the movement while tonic synergies show co-contraction of multiple muscles for joint stabilization and holding postures. These results suggest that in many scenarios phasic and tonic synergies should be extracted separately, especially when performing muscle synergy analysis in patients with abnormal tonic activity and for tuning devices with gravity support.