This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lee, P. J. Articles by Moorhouse, K. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lee, P. J. Articles by Moorhouse, K. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Active Trunk Stiffness During Voluntary Isometric Flexion and Extension Exertions

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Kevin P. Granata

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, granata{at}vt.edu

Kevin M. Moorhouse

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Objective: Compare muscle activity and trunk stiffness during isometric trunk flexion and extension exertions. Background: Elastic stiffness of the torso musculature is considered the primary stabilizing mechanism of the spine. Therefore, stiffness of the trunk during voluntary exertions provides insight into the stabilizing control of pushing and pulling tasks. Methods: Twelve participants maintained an upright posture against external flexion and extension loads applied to the trunk. Trunk stiffness, damping, and mass were determined from the dynamic relation between pseudorandom force disturbances and subsequent small-amplitude trunk movements recorded during the voluntary exertions. Muscle activity was recorded from rectus abdominus, external oblique, lumbar paraspinal, and internal oblique muscle groups. Results: Normalized electromyographic activity indicated greater antagonistic muscle recruitment during flexion exertions than during extension. Trunk stiffness was significantly greater during flexion exertions than during extension exertions despite similar levels of applied force. Trunk stiffness increased with exertion effort. Conclusion: Theoretical and empirical analyses reveal that greater antagonistic cocontraction is required to maintain spinal stability during trunk flexion exertions than during extension exertions. Measured differences in active trunk stiffness were attributed to antagonistic activity during flexion exertions with possible contributions from spinal kinematics and muscle lines of action. Application: When compared with trunk extension exertions, trunk flexion exertions such as pushing tasks require unique neuromuscular control that is not simply explained by differences in exertion direction. Biomechanical analyses of flexion tasks must consider the stabilizing muscle recruitment patterns when evaluating spinal compression and shear loads.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 49, No. 1, 100-109 (2007)
DOI: 10.1518/001872007779597993


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?