Literature DB >> 11390042

Comparative ability of EMG, optimization, and hybrid modelling approaches to predict trunk muscle forces and lumbar spine loading during dynamic sagittal plane lifting.

D Gagnon1, C Larivière, P Loisel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of three modelling approaches to resolve the muscle and joint forces in a lumbar spine model during dynamic sagittal plane lifting.
DESIGN: Trunk muscle forces, spine compression, and coactivity predicted through double linear optimization, EMG-assisted, and EMG assisted by optimization approaches were compared.Background. The advantages of EMG-based approaches are known from static task analyses. Limited assessment has been made for dynamic lifting.
METHODS: Eleven male subjects performed sagittal plane lifting-lowering at fixed cadence from 0 degrees to 45 degrees of trunk flexion with and without an external load of 12 kg. Three-dimensional kinematics and dynamics as well as surface EMG provided inputs to a 12 muscle lumbar spine model.
RESULTS: Trunk muscle coactivity was different between the modelling approaches but spine compression was not. Both EMG-based approaches were sensitive to trunk muscle coactivity and imbalance in left-right muscle forces during sagittal plane lifting. Overall, the best correlations between predicted forces and EMG as well as between forces predicted by different modelling approaches were obtained with the EMG-based models. Only the EMG assisted by optimization approach simultaneously satisfied mechanical and physiological validity.
CONCLUSIONS: Both EMG-based approaches demonstrated their potential to detect individual trunk muscle strategies. A more detailed trunk anatomy representation would improve the EMG-assisted approach and reduce the adjustment to muscle force gain through EMG assisted by optimization. RELEVANCE: Injury to the lumbar spine could command alternative strategies of motion to attenuate pain and damage. To understand these strategies, the ideal lumbar spine model should predict individual muscle force patterns and satisfy mechanical equilibrium.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11390042     DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(01)00016-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  6 in total

1.  Spinal muscle forces, internal loads and stability in standing under various postures and loads--application of kinematics-based algorithm.

Authors:  A Shirazi-Adl; M El-Rich; D G Pop; M Parnianpour
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-09-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  EMG Processing Based Measures of Fatigue Assessment during Manual Lifting.

Authors:  E F Shair; S A Ahmad; M H Marhaban; S B Mohd Tamrin; A R Abdullah
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Optimizing Calibration Procedure to Train a Regression-Based Prediction Model of Actively Generated Lumbar Muscle Moments for Exoskeleton Control.

Authors:  Ali Tabasi; Maria Lazzaroni; Niels P Brouwer; Idsart Kingma; Wietse van Dijk; Michiel P de Looze; Stefano Toxiri; Jesús Ortiz; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  Validation of a Patient-Specific Musculoskeletal Model for Lumbar Load Estimation Generated by an Automated Pipeline From Whole Body CT.

Authors:  Tanja Lerchl; Malek El Husseini; Amirhossein Bayat; Anjany Sekuboyina; Luis Hermann; Kati Nispel; Thomas Baum; Maximilian T Löffler; Veit Senner; Jan S Kirschke
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-07-11

5.  Influence of model complexity and problem formulation on the forces in the knee calculated using optimization methods.

Authors:  Chih-Chung Hu; Tung-Wu Lu; Sheng-Chang Chen
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  Investigation of the Differential Contributions of Superficial and Deep Muscles on Cervical Spinal Loads with Changing Head Postures.

Authors:  Chih-Hsiu Cheng; Andy Chien; Wei-Li Hsu; Carl Pai-Chu Chen; Hsin-Yi Kathy Cheng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.