4.3 Article

Electromyographic assessment of trunk muscle activation amplitudes during a simulated lifting task using pattern recognition techniques

Journal

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages E505-E512

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.09.010

Keywords

Electromyography; Pattern recognition; Lifting; Trunk muscles; Amplitude recruitment strategies

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation (NSHRF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study sought to determine the patterns of neuromuscular response from 24-trunk muscle sites during a symmetrical lift and replace task. Surface electromyograms (EMG) and kinematic variables were recorded from 29 healthy subjects. Pattern recognition techniques were used to examine how activation amplitude patterns changed with the different physical demands of the task (reach, phase of movement). The results indicated that there was very little trunk and pelvis motion during the task. Three principal patterns accounted for 95% of the total variation suggesting that the measured data had a simple underlying structure of variance. ANOVA results revealed significant differences in principal pattern scores. These differences captured subtle changes in muscle recruitment strategies that most likely reflect different stability and biomechanical demands. More balanced activations (bracing) between the abdominal and back sites were observed during the lighter demands, whereas differential recruitment among the back extensor sites was more predominant in the more demanding conditions. A pattern recognition technique offers a novel method to examine the relationships among a large number of muscles and test how different work characteristics change the relationships among the muscle sites. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available