Literature DB >> 14680997

Ergonomics and biology of spinal rotation.

Shrawan Kumar1.   

Abstract

Spinal rotation, though being a very common motion of the body, is poorly understood. Furthermore, this motion and the extent of its development is unique to the human. Beyond the extent of its need in common activities, spinal rotation is a destabilizating motion for an inherently unstable structure. Spinal rotation has been argued to be an essential feature for an efficient bipedal gait. Also, it provides leverage to the upper extremities in delivering a forceful impact. An artificial restriction/elimination of spinal rotation resulted in significantly shorter stride length, slower walking velocity, and higher energy consumption in walking (p < 0.05). Spinal rotation also decreases the amount of force the spinal muscles can generate (to 25% of spinal extension). However, its extensive employment in industrial activities has been associated with 60.4% of back injuries. It is further stated that the amount of scientific information currently available is inadequate to biomechanically model the spinal response in a working environment. For example, when the spine is pre-rotated, a further rotation in the direction of pre-rotation decreases the force production significantly (p < 0.01) and increases the EMG activity significantly (p < 0.01) but the pattern changes with effort in the opposite direction. This and other properties (described in the paper) render biomechanical models inadequate. Muscle activation pattern and neuromotor behaviour of spinal muscles in flexion/extension and rotation of the spine are significantly different from each other (p < 0.01). The localized fatigue in different spinal muscles in the same contraction is significantly different and has been called differential fatigue. Finally, the trunk rotation, being pivotal for bipedal locomotion has brought many back problems to the human race.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14680997     DOI: 10.1080/0014013032000157940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ergonomics        ISSN: 0014-0139            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

1.  The motor cortical representation of a muscle is not homogeneous in brain connectivity.

Authors:  Jo Armour Smith; Alaa Albishi; Sarine Babikian; Skulpan Asavasopon; Beth E Fisher; Jason J Kutch
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Method to measure tone of axial and proximal muscle.

Authors:  Victor S Gurfinkel; Timothy W Cacciatore; Paul J Cordo; Fay B Horak
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  Rapid adaptation of torso pointing movements to perturbations of the base of support.

Authors:  Todd E Hudson; James R Lackner; Paul DiZio
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-06-08       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Comparison of trunk activity during gait initiation and walking in humans.

Authors:  Jean-Charles Ceccato; Mathieu de Sèze; Christine Azevedo; Jean-René Cazalets
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Axial hypertonicity in Parkinson's disease: direct measurements of trunk and hip torque.

Authors:  W G Wright; V S Gurfinkel; J Nutt; F B Horak; P J Cordo
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 5.330

6.  The deer play in Wuqinxi and four-point hand-knee kneeling positions for training core muscle function and spinal mobility.

Authors:  Xiao-Qian Chang; Xin-Peng Chen; Yi-Xin Shen; Kuan Wang; Shang-Jun Huang; Yan Qi; Wen-Xin Niu
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-09-27
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.