Literature DB >> 10908940

Decrease in trunk muscular response to perturbation with preactivation of lumbar spinal musculature.

I A Stokes1, M Gardner-Morse, S M Henry, G J Badger.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An experimental study of healthy subjects' trunk muscle responses to force perturbations at differing angles and steady state efforts.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether increased preactivation of muscles was associated with decreased likelihood of muscular activation in response to a transient force perturbation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Trunk stability (ability to return to equilibrium position after a perturbation) requires the stiffness of appropriately activated muscles to prevent buckling and consequent "self-injury." Therefore, greater trunk muscle preactivation might decrease the likelihood of reflex muscle responses to small perturbations.
METHODS: Each of 13 subjects stood in an apparatus with the pelvis immobilized. A harness around the thorax provided a preload and a force perturbation by a horizontal cable and a movable pulley attached to one of five anchorage points on a wall track surrounding the subject at angles of 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees, and 180 degrees to the forward direction. Subjects first equilibrated with a preload effort of nominally 20% or 40% of their maximum extension effort. Then a single full sine-wave force perturbation pulse of nominal amplitude, 7.5% or 15% of maximum effort, duration 80 milliseconds or 300 milliseconds, was applied at a random time, with three repeated trials of each test condition. The applied force (via a load cell) and the electromyographic activity of six right and left pairs of trunk muscles were recorded. Muscle responses were detected by two methods. 1) Shewhart method: electromyographic signal greater than "baseline" values by more than three standard deviations, and 2) Mean Electromyographic Difference method: mean electromyographic signal in a time window 25 to 150 milliseconds after the force perturbation greater than that in a 25- to 150-millisecond window before the perturbation.
RESULTS: Lower preload efforts were associated with more muscle responses (overall mean response detection rate = 33% at low preload and 25% at high preload). Using the Shewhart method, there were significant differences by effort (P<0.05) for all abdominal muscles and for all left dorsal muscles except multifidus. Using the Mean Electromyographic Difference method, there were significant differences by effort (P<0.05) for the same dorsal muscles, but only for one of the abdominal muscles.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the spine can be stabilized by the stiffness of activated muscles, obviating the need for active muscle responses to perturbations.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10908940     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200008010-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  22 in total

1.  External perturbation of the trunk in standing humans differentially activates components of the medial back muscles.

Authors:  G Lorimer Moseley; Paul W Hodges; S C Gandevia
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-12-20       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Movement of the upper body and muscle activity patterns following a rapidly applied load: the influence of pre-load alterations.

Authors:  T Bull Andersen; M Essendrop; B Schibye
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2004-02-11       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  The effect of sex and chronic low back pain on back muscle reflex responses.

Authors:  Christian Larivière; Robert Forget; Roger Vadeboncoeur; Martin Bilodeau; Hakim Mecheri
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Effects of static flexion-relaxation on paraspinal reflex behavior.

Authors:  Kevin P Granata; Ellen Rogers; Kevin Moorhouse
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Trunk muscular activation patterns and responses to transient force perturbation in persons with self-reported low back pain.

Authors:  Ian A F Stokes; James R Fox; Sharon M Henry
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Active trunk stiffness increases with co-contraction.

Authors:  Patrick J Lee; Ellen L Rogers; Kevin P Granata
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 2.368

7.  The effects of trunk stiffness on postural control during unstable seated balance.

Authors:  N Peter Reeves; Vanessa Q Everding; Jacek Cholewicki; David C Morrisette
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-25       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 8.  Spine stability: the six blind men and the elephant.

Authors:  N Peter Reeves; Kumpati S Narendra; Jacek Cholewicki
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-01-08       Impact factor: 2.063

9.  Comparison of open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion in a sheep model.

Authors:  W Lehmann; A Ushmaev; A Ruecker; J Nuechtern; L Grossterlinden; P G Begemann; T Baeumer; J M Rueger; D Briem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis.

Authors:  Naureen Keric; David J Eum; Feroz Afghanyar; Izabela Rachwal-Czyzewicz; Mirjam Renovanz; Jens Conrad; Dominik M A Wesp; Sven R Kantelhardt; Alf Giese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-06-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.