Literature DB >> 15804849

Effects of antagonistic co-contraction on differences between electromyography based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces.

J H van Dieën1, I Kingma.   

Abstract

Estimates of spinal forces are quite sensitive to model assumptions, especially regarding antagonistic co-contraction. Optimization based models predict co-contraction to be absent, while electromyography (EMG) based models take co-contraction into account, but usually assume equal activation of deep and superficial parts of a muscle. The aim of the present study was to compare EMG based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces in a wide range of work tasks. Data obtained from ten subjects performing a total of 28 tasks were analysed with an EMG driven model and three optimization models, which were specifically designed to test the effects of the above assumptions. Estimates of peak spinal forces obtained using the different modelling approaches were similar for total muscle force and its compression component (on average EMG based predictions were 5% higher) and were closely related (R > 0.92), while differences in predictions of the peak shear component of muscle force were more substantial (with up to 39% lower estimates in optimization based models, R > 0.79). The results show that neither neglecting antagonistic co-contraction, nor assuming equal activation of deep and superficial muscles, has a major effect on estimates of spinal forces. The disparity between shear force predictions was due to an overestimation of activity of the lateral part of the internal oblique muscle by the optimization models, which is explained by the cost function preferentially recruiting larger muscles. This suggests that a penalty for active muscle mass should be included in the cost function used for predicting trunk muscle recruitment.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15804849     DOI: 10.1080/00140130512331332918

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


  11 in total

1.  Anterior shear strength of the porcine lumbar spine after laminectomy and partial facetectomy.

Authors:  Guido B van Solinge; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën; Idsart Kingma; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Tim V Wrigley; Jaap H van Dieën; Bev Phillips; Sing Kai Lo; Alison M Greig; Kim L Bennell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Two linear regression models predicting cumulative dynamic L5/S1 joint moment during a range of lifting tasks based on static postures.

Authors:  Xu Xu; Chien-Chi Chang; Ming-Lun Lu
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Estimating apparent maximum muscle stress of trunk extensor muscles in older adults using subject-specific musculoskeletal models.

Authors:  Katelyn A Burkhart; Alexander G Bruno; Mary L Bouxsein; Jonathan F Bean; Dennis E Anderson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Analytical and numerical analysis of inverse optimization problems: conditions of uniqueness and computational methods.

Authors:  Alexander V Terekhov; Vladimir M Zatsiorsky
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 2.086

6.  The effects of operator position, pallet orientation, and palletizing condition on low back loads in manual bag palletizing operations.

Authors:  Sean Gallagher; John R Heberger
Journal:  Int J Ind Ergon       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.656

7.  A simple method for estimating the intervertebral disc compressive force based on the posture analysis of community-dwelling older adults.

Authors:  Azusa Nishizawa; Junji Katsuhira; Makoto Watanabe; Hiroyuki Oka; Ko Matsudaira
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2021-05-15

8.  Cumulative low back load at work as a risk factor of low back pain: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Pieter Coenen; Idsart Kingma; Cécile R L Boot; Jos W R Twisk; Paulien M Bongers; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2013-03

9.  Which factors prognosticate spinal instability following lumbar laminectomy?

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Barend J van Royen; Margriet G Mullender; Cornelis P L Paul; Idsart Kingma; Timothy U Jiya; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The impact of bone mineral density and disc degeneration on shear strength and stiffness of the lumbar spine following laminectomy.

Authors:  Arno Bisschop; Margriet G Mullender; Idsart Kingma; Timothy U Jiya; Albert J van der Veen; Jan C Roos; Jaap H van Dieën; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.