| Literature DB >> 35162203 |
Ruixin Liang1, Joanne Yip1,2, Yunli Fan3,4,5, Jason P Y Cheung3,4, Kai-Tsun Michael To3,4.
Abstract
A large number of studies have used electromyography (EMG) to measure the paraspinal muscle activity of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. However, investigations on the features of these muscles are very limited even though the information is useful for evaluating the effectiveness of various types of interventions, such as scoliosis-specific exercises. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to investigate the characteristics of participants with imbalanced muscle activity and the relationships among 13 features (physical features and EMG signal value). A total of 106 participants (69% with scoliosis; 78% female; 9-30 years old) are involved in this study. Their basic profile information is obtained, and the surface EMG signals of the upper trapezius, latissimus dorsi, and erector spinae (thoracic and erector spinae) lumbar muscles are tested in the static (sitting) and dynamic (prone extension position) conditions. Then, two machine learning approaches and an importance analysis are used. About 30% of the participants in this study find that balancing their paraspinal muscle activity during sitting is challenging. The most interesting finding is that the dynamic asymmetry of the erector spinae (lumbar) group of muscles is an important (third in importance) predictor of scoliosis aside from the angle of trunk rotation and height of the subject.Entities:
Keywords: asymmetry; importance analysis; muscle activity; random forest; support vector machines
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162203 PMCID: PMC8835103 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031177
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Participant information.
| No. of | No. of Male Participants | No. of Female Participants | Age/Years Old | Height/m | Weight/kg | ATR/° | Cobb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants with scoliosis | Single-curve scoliosis | 39 | 12 | 27 | 14.51 ± 3.34 | 1.62 ± 0.09 | 46.68 ± 11.39 | 6.74 ± 4.35 | 21.97 ± 10.11 |
| Double-curve scoliosis | 34 | 2 | 32 | 15.00 ± 4.51 | 1.62 ± 0.07 | 47.04 ± 9.27 | 8.50 ± 3.61 | 27.59 ± 9.94 | |
| All | 73 | 14 | 59 | 14.63 ± 3.82 | 1.61 ± 0.09 | 46.55 ± 10.46 | 7.35 ± 4.12 | 23.72 ± 10.65 | |
| Participants without scoliosis | 33 | 10 | 23 | 14.36 ± 4.78 | 1.57 ± 0.12 | 44.85 ± 10.14 | 2.79 ± 3.23 | 1.03 ± 2.03 | |
| All | 106 | 24 | 82 | 14.44 ± 4.11 | 1.60 ± 1.01 | 45.68 ± 10.45 | 6.12 ± 4.38 | 17.48 ± 13.61 | |
Figure 1An X-ray image of the Cobb angle.
Figure 2Electrode placement. Upper trapezius (TRAP) (a), latissimus dorsi (b), erector spinae—thoracic (c), and erector spi-nae—lumbar (d).
Figure 3EMG test while sitting (static condition).
Figure 4Dynamic pose.
Figure 5Flow chart of the classification algorithm.
Figure 6Participants with significantly asymmetric paraspinal muscles.
Figure 7Participants with significant differences between left and right muscles based on group.
Figure 8Importance of each feature based on random forests.