Literature DB >> 12739089

Attenuation of human neck muscle activity following repeated imposed trunk-forward linear acceleration.

Jean-Sébastien Blouin1, Martin Descarreaux, Ariane Bélanger-Gravel, Martin Simoneau, Normand Teasdale.   

Abstract

It has been suggested that, after a passive linear acceleration of a seated subject which resembles a small, rear-end car impact, sensory information from proprioceptive, vestibular, and visual systems elicit stabilizing neck muscular responses. These neck muscular responses are presumably reflex based and are modified with the magnitude of the perturbation. A key issue that remains is to determine whether the neck and head postural responses can be modulated by a previous experience of the acceleration and not only by the magnitude of the acceleration. This question is of interest because, contrary to cadaver studies, one could expect that humans apprehending a rapid trunk acceleration would adopt a bracing behavior to minimize head movements. The aim of the present experiment was to verify whether neck-muscle activities can be modulated when prior knowledge about whole-body acceleration onset, direction, and magnitude are unknown compared with when only acceleration onset is unknown. Nine seated subjects were submitted to 11 imposed, forward linear accelerations (1.1 g). For the first trial, subjects were completely unaware of the platform acceleration characteristics (onset, direction, amplitude, and acceleration magnitude). For the subsequent ten trials, subjects knew they would be submitted to a forward linear acceleration, but the onset of the acceleration was unknown. Head kinematics and EMG responses of the neck muscles to the first perturbation were similar for all subjects (6.2 degrees head extension, EMG activity starting from 55 to 72 ms after platform onset). Following the first trial, however, all subjects showed a decreased neck EMG activity. Moreover, subjects responded in one of two ways across trials: one group of subjects ( n=5) maintained a constant head angular position and velocity, whereas the other group ( n=4) showed an increased head angular position (up to 12.6 degrees ) and velocity. This suggests that the first perturbation trial revealed a completely reactive response. After this initial trial, the responses observed may present a mixture of feedforward and feedback control. It is likely that whiplash injuries occur under conditions resembling those observed for the first trial only. If this is the case, the behavior for the following trials cannot be representative of injury mechanisms occurring in whiplash-like motion. Altogether, our results strongly suggest that, following repeated trunk linear accelerations of a constant magnitude, the nervous system prefers to minimize muscle stress instead of adopting a bracing strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12739089     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1466-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  20 in total

1.  The effect of perturbation acceleration and advance warning on the neck postural responses of seated subjects.

Authors:  Gunter P Siegmund; David J Sanderson; J Timothy Inglis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-03-07       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Cervical electromyographic activity during low-speed rear impact.

Authors:  M L Magnusson; M H Pope; L Hasselquist; K M Bolte; M Ross; V K Goel; J S Lee; K Spratt; C R Clark; D G Wilder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Head stabilization during various locomotor tasks in humans. I. Normal subjects.

Authors:  T Pozzo; A Berthoz; L Lefort
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Head kinematic during various motor tasks in humans.

Authors:  T Pozzo; A Berthoz; L Lefort
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.453

5.  Influence of local sensory afference in the calibration of human balance responses.

Authors:  R P Di Fabio; M B Badke; A McEvoy; A Breunig
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Reproducibility and adaptation of the EMG responses of the lower leg following perturbations of upright stance.

Authors:  G A Horstmann; A Gollhofer; V Dietz
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1988-11

7.  Postural responses to changing task conditions.

Authors:  P D Hansen; M H Woollacott; B Debu
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Postural adjustments in sitting humans following external perturbations: muscle activity and kinematics.

Authors:  H Forssberg; H Hirschfeld
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Age related decline in postural control mechanisms.

Authors:  G E Stelmach; N Teasdale; R P Di Fabio; J Phillips
Journal:  Int J Aging Hum Dev       Date:  1989

10.  Adapting reflexes controlling the human posture.

Authors:  L M Nashner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1976-08-27       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  18 in total

1.  Deceleration affects anticipatory and reactive components of triggered postural responses.

Authors:  Mark G Carpenter; Alf Thorstensson; Andrew G Cresswell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-23       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Cognition and balance control: does processing of explicit contextual cues of impending perturbations modulate automatic postural responses?

Authors:  Daniel Boari Coelho; Luis Augusto Teixeira
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Motor adaptations to trunk perturbation: effects of experimental back pain and spinal tissue creep.

Authors:  Jacques Abboud; Catherine Daneau; François Nougarou; Claude Dugas; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Chronic neck pain alters muscle activation patterns to sudden movements.

Authors:  Shellie A Boudreau; Deborah Falla
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Females exhibit shorter paraspinal reflex latencies than males in response to sudden trunk flexion perturbations.

Authors:  Emily M Miller; Gregory P Slota; Michael J Agnew; Michael L Madigan
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Head and neck control varies with perturbation acceleration but not jerk: implications for whiplash injuries.

Authors:  Gunter P Siegmund; Jean-Sébastien Blouin
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  The Potential Role of the Cervical Spine in Sports-Related Concussion: Clinical Perspectives and Considerations for Risk Reduction.

Authors:  Michael Streifer; Allison M Brown; Tara Porfido; Ellen Zambo Anderson; Jennifer F Buckman; Carrie Esopenko
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 4.751

8.  Startle responses elicited by whiplash perturbations.

Authors:  Jean-Sébastien Blouin; J Timothy Inglis; Gunter P Siegmund
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2006-03-31       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  Neck Muscle and Head/Neck Kinematic Responses While Bracing Against the Steering Wheel During Front and Rear Impacts.

Authors:  Jason B Fice; Daniel W H Mang; Jóna M Ólafsdóttir; Karin Brolin; Peter A Cripton; Jean-Sébastien Blouin; Gunter P Siegmund
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.934

10.  Deceleration during 'real life' motor vehicle collisions - a sensitive predictor for the risk of sustaining a cervical spine injury?

Authors:  Martin Elbel; Michael Kramer; Markus Huber-Lang; Erich Hartwig; Christoph Dehner
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2009-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.