4.3 Article

Abdominal muscle activity during breathing with and without inspiratory and expiratory loads in healthy subjects

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 143-150

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.07.002

关键词

Respiration; Postural control; Core abdominal; Respiratory loads; Surface electromyographic activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Central Nervous System modulates the motor activities of all trunk muscles to concurrently regulate the intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic pressures. The study aims to evaluate the effect of inspiratory and expiratory loads on abdominal muscle activity during breathing in healthy subjects. Twenty-three higher education students (21.09 +/- 1.56 years; 8 males) breathed at a same rhythm (inspiration: two seconds; expiration: four seconds) without load and with 10% of the maximal inspiratory or expiratory pressures, in standing. Surface electromyography was performed to assess the activation intensity of rectus abdominis, external oblique and transversus abdominis/internal oblique muscles, during inspiration and expiration. During inspiration, transversus abdominis/internal oblique activation intensity was significantly lower with inspiratory load when compared to without load (p = 0.009) and expiratory load (p = 0.002). During expiration, the activation intensity of all abdominal muscles was significantly higher with expiratory load when compared to without load (p < 0.05). The activation intensity of external oblique (p = 0.036) and transversus abdominis/internal oblique (p = 0.022) was significantly higher with inspiratory load when compared to without load. Transversus abdominis/internal oblique activation intensity was significantly higher with expiratory load when compared to inspiratory load (p < 0.001). Transversus abdominis/internal oblique seems to be the most relevant muscle to modulate the intra-abdominal pressure for the breathing mechanics. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据