Assessment of neuromuscular activity during maximal isometric contraction in supine vs standing body positions |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden;2. Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Unit of Physiotherapy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden;3. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, SDU Muscle Research Cluster (SMRC), University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark;1. Laboratório de Pesquisa do Exercício, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;2. Área do Conhecimento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Brazil;1. Discipline of Anatomy & Histology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of Sydney, Australia;2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium;3. Discipline of Exercise & Sports Science, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of Sydney, Australia;1. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, College of Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA;2. Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA;3. Illini Fall Prevention Clinic, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA;1. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome ‘Foro Italico’, Rome, Italy;2. Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ London, UK;1. Department of Nutrition and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68510, USA;2. College of Health Sciences, Kinesiology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 39968, USA;3. School of Kinesiology and Physical Therapy, Division of Kinesiology University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundWhen comparing neuromuscular activity between different individuals or different conditions by use of surface electromyography (sEMG) it is necessary to apply standardized assessment protocol. Most frequently used method is the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). However, the influence of body posture on sEMG activity during MVIC testing remains largely unknown.AimTo evaluate the MVIC method for sEMG normalization in supine versus standing positions for selected muscles of the lower extremity and trunk.MethodsTwelve healthy individuals participated; five females and seven males (age 22–51 yrs). sEMG signals were recorded bilaterally from mm tibialis anterior, gluteus medius, adductor longus, rectus abdominus, external oblique and internal oblique/transversus abdominus according to standardized test protocol. Two different body positions were used: supine and standing position.ResultsMVIC peak sEMG signal amplitudes did not differ systematically between supine and standing test positions. Pronounced inter-subject variability in MVIC reference sEMG activity were observed between participants, during both supine and standing test positions.ConclusionPresent data demonstrate that MVIC EMG normalization is a biomechanically stable procedure that can be performed in a reproducible manner for the major leg and trunk muscles when comparing supine vs. standing test positions. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
