Effects of sudden walking perturbations on neuromuscular reflex activity and three-dimensional motion of the trunk in healthy controls and back pain symptomatic subjects
Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an...
Saved in:
Published in | PloS one Vol. 12; no. 3; p. e0174034 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Public Library of Science
20.03.2017
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations.
Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP.
No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups.
BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s.sup.2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (T.sub.ON ;ms) and time to maximum activity (T.sub.MAX ;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (A.sub.mean ;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student's t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (S.sub.right :S.sub.left). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group H.sub.matched) to the BPP. No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and S.sub.rigth :S.sub.left between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased T.sub.ON and T.sub.MAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to H.sub.matched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (A.sub.mean). Trunk posture (A.sub.mean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/H.sub.matched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. H.sub.matched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations.BACKGROUNDBack pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations.Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP.METHODSEighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP.No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups.RESULTSNo group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups.BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations.CONCLUSIONBPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s.sup.2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (T.sub.ON ;ms) and time to maximum activity (T.sub.MAX ;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (A.sub.mean ;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student's t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (S.sub.right :S.sub.left). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group H.sub.matched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and S.sub.rigth :S.sub.left between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased T.sub.ON and T.sub.MAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to H.sub.matched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (A.sub.mean). Trunk posture (A.sub.mean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/H.sub.matched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. H.sub.matched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f; 29 plus or minus 9yrs; 174 plus or minus 10cm; 71 plus or minus 13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f; 30 plus or minus 8yrs; 171 plus or minus 10cm; 67 plus or minus 14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON; ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX; ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM; [ degree ]) and mean angle (Amean; [ degree ]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a students t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV; %) was calculated (EMG-RMS; ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations. Methods Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP. Results No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups. Conclusion BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations. |
Audience | Academic |
Author | Baur, Heiner Mueller, Steffen Engel, Tilman Mayer, Frank Mueller, Juliane Stoll, Josefine |
AuthorAffiliation | Semmelweis Egyetem, HUNGARY 2 Bern University of Applied Sciences, Health, Physiotherapy, Bern, Switzerland 1 University Outpatient Clinic, Sports Medicine & Sports Orthopaedics, University of Potsdam, Germany |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: Semmelweis Egyetem, HUNGARY – name: 1 University Outpatient Clinic, Sports Medicine & Sports Orthopaedics, University of Potsdam, Germany – name: 2 Bern University of Applied Sciences, Health, Physiotherapy, Bern, Switzerland |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Juliane surname: Mueller fullname: Mueller, Juliane – sequence: 2 givenname: Tilman surname: Engel fullname: Engel, Tilman – sequence: 3 givenname: Steffen surname: Mueller fullname: Mueller, Steffen – sequence: 4 givenname: Josefine surname: Stoll fullname: Stoll, Josefine – sequence: 5 givenname: Heiner surname: Baur fullname: Baur, Heiner – sequence: 6 givenname: Frank surname: Mayer fullname: Mayer, Frank |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28319133$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqNk9tq3DAQhk1JaQ7tG5RWUCjtxW4ty7bsXhRCSNtAINDTrRjrsKuNLG0lOc0-Ut-y8u4mZEMowRc2M9__azyaOcz2rLMyy17ifIoJxR8WbvAWzHSZwtMc0zIn5ZPsALekmNRFTvbufO9nhyEs8rwiTV0_y_aLhuAWE3KQ_T1VSvIYkFMoDEJIi_6AudR2hpbSx8F3ELWzKW-RlYN3_RD4YMAjL5WR1wh41Fc6rhBYgeLcSzkRupc2JBUY1LtRPrrHuUTRD_YSaYvmEkycrxB3NnpnwlrdAb9ES0jpsOqX0fXpaJ6q6hZjhc-zpwpMkC-276Ps5-fTHydfJ-cXX85Ojs8nvCZ1OSEKN7ilguSihporXuUV7SiURVmpnCioBZRdCR0vcyk66LDqCpFDUgMloiVH2euN79K4wLZdDgw3tMW0JbRKxNmGEA4WbOl1D37FHGi2Djg_Y-BT6UYyrtoCSoIVL3FJO97wSha85kSKqsglTV6ftqcNXS8Fl6kfYHZMdzNWz9nMXbGKVE0qKRm82xp493uQIbJeBy6NASvdMNbdYFoXVUMfgdK2rtqmrBP65h76cCO21AzSv2qrXCqRj6bsuGzqAtMmDdlRNn2ASo-QvU4DIJVO8R3B-x3BOCTyOs5gCIGdff_2ePbi1y779g67GcHgzLAe8F3w1d1Lub2Nm7VJQLkBuHchpE24RXDOxu28aRcbt5NttzPJPt6TcR3X-5U6os3_xf8AWJdE9A |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jelekin_2018_09_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbiomech_2020_109971 crossref_primary_10_3390_sports8060078 crossref_primary_10_1002_jor_24575 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jelekin_2021_102533 crossref_primary_10_3390_sym13112115 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_humov_2019_05_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbiomech_2019_109493 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2031_8367 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_neulet_2018_01_011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbiomech_2017_12_013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbiomech_2020_109646 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ptsp_2022_11_011 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13102_022_00586_z crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0286895 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00586_023_07639_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_humov_2023_103094 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10439_017_1972_8 crossref_primary_10_3389_fspor_2023_1129058 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbiomech_2022_111276 crossref_primary_10_1093_ageing_afaa070 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_018_2799_9 crossref_primary_10_3390_s22239254 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gaitpost_2022_12_015 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jamda_2020_02_011 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0206885 crossref_primary_10_3389_fspor_2022_1012471 |
Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.033 10.1016/S1050-6411(96)00033-8 10.1016/S1050-6411(03)00043-9 10.1007/s002210100693 10.1007/s00586-004-0825-y 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.06.013 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.07.004 10.1055/s-2007-964996 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00160-1 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.03.016 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.05.005 10.1080/00140139.2012.752528 10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00108-X 10.2165/00007256-200838110-00002 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.11.012 10.1589/jpts.25.1189 10.1097/00007632-200104010-00004 10.1097/00007632-200004150-00009 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.08.010 10.2165/00007256-200636030-00001 10.1249/00149619-200402000-00008 10.2106/00004623-200402000-00027 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.014 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.09.013 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00118-4 10.2165/00007256-200838120-00004 10.1097/00007632-200109010-00019 10.1016/S0278-5919(03)00061-9 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00009 10.1177/0269215515570379 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.02.006 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.12.003 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.05.004 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.007 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.042 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7 10.1016/j.jelekin.2014.03.007 10.1007/s00586-012-2155-9 10.1007/s00586-004-0679-3 10.1186/s13063-016-1645-1 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science 2017 Mueller et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. 2017 Mueller et al 2017 Mueller et al |
Copyright_xml | – notice: COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science – notice: 2017 Mueller et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: 2017 Mueller et al 2017 Mueller et al |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM IOV ISR 3V. 7QG 7QL 7QO 7RV 7SN 7SS 7T5 7TG 7TM 7U9 7X2 7X7 7XB 88E 8AO 8C1 8FD 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABJCF ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA ARAPS ATCPS AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI C1K CCPQU D1I DWQXO FR3 FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ H94 HCIFZ K9. KB. KB0 KL. L6V LK8 M0K M0S M1P M7N M7P M7S NAPCQ P5Z P62 P64 PATMY PDBOC PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PTHSS PYCSY RC3 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0174034 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Gale In Context: Science ProQuest Central (Corporate) Animal Behavior Abstracts Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Biotechnology Research Abstracts Nursing & Allied Health Database Ecology Abstracts Entomology Abstracts (Full archive) Immunology Abstracts Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts Nucleic Acids Abstracts Virology and AIDS Abstracts Agricultural Science Collection Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Pharma Collection Public Health Database Technology Research Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Technology Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Materials Science & Engineering Collection ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Technology Collection Natural Science Collection Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Materials Science Collection ProQuest Central Engineering Research Database Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Materials Science Database Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition) Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic ProQuest Engineering Collection Biological Sciences Agricultural Science Database ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Proquest Medical Database Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Biological Science Database Engineering Database Nursing & Allied Health Premium Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Science Database Materials Science Collection ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Engineering collection Environmental Science Collection Genetics Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Agricultural Science Database Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection ProQuest Central Essentials Nucleic Acids Abstracts SciTech Premium Collection Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability Health Research Premium Collection Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts Natural Science Collection Health & Medical Research Collection Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) Engineering Collection Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection Engineering Database Virology and AIDS Abstracts ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition Agricultural Science Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database Ecology Abstracts ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Science Collection Entomology Abstracts Nursing & Allied Health Premium ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Environmental Science Database ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source (Alumni) Engineering Research Database ProQuest One Academic Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) Technology Collection Technology Research Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) Materials Science Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Genetics Abstracts ProQuest Engineering Collection Biotechnology Research Abstracts Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B) Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C) Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts Materials Science Database ProQuest Materials Science Collection ProQuest Public Health ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source ProQuest SciTech Collection Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database ProQuest Medical Library Animal Behavior Abstracts Materials Science & Engineering Collection Immunology Abstracts ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE Agricultural Science Database Engineering Research Database |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: 8FG name: ProQuest Technology Collection url: https://search.proquest.com/technologycollection1 sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Sciences (General) Medicine |
DocumentTitleAlternate | Trunk loading in healthy and back pain symptomatic subjects |
EISSN | 1932-6203 |
ExternalDocumentID | 1879179375 oai_doaj_org_article_cf92a431fc4147bc8c5e2c6c3ed520e7 PMC5358879 4321021757 A486217813 28319133 10_1371_journal_pone_0174034 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: ; grantid: BISp IIA1-080102A/11-14 – fundername: ; grantid: 80132471 |
GroupedDBID | --- 123 29O 2WC 53G 5VS 7RV 7X2 7X7 7XC 88E 8AO 8C1 8CJ 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ A8Z AAFWJ AAUCC AAWOE AAYXX ABDBF ABIVO ABJCF ABUWG ACGFO ACIHN ACIWK ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ AEAQA AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHMBA ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS APEBS ARAPS ATCPS BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI BKEYQ BPHCQ BVXVI BWKFM CCPQU CITATION CS3 D1I D1J D1K DIK DU5 E3Z EAP EAS EBD EMOBN ESX EX3 F5P FPL FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HH5 HMCUK HYE IAO IEA IGS IHR IHW INH INR IOV IPY ISE ISR ITC K6- KB. KQ8 L6V LK5 LK8 M0K M1P M48 M7P M7R M7S M~E NAPCQ O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P P62 PATMY PDBOC PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PTHSS PV9 PYCSY RNS RPM RZL SV3 TR2 UKHRP WOQ WOW ~02 ~KM 3V. BBORY CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF IPNFZ NPM RIG PMFND 7QG 7QL 7QO 7SN 7SS 7T5 7TG 7TM 7U9 7XB 8FD 8FK AZQEC C1K DWQXO FR3 GNUQQ H94 K9. KL. M7N P64 PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQUKI RC3 7X8 5PM PUEGO - 02 AAPBV ABPTK ADACO BBAFP KM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c6364-3f18197d30d6a6cfc5057b7a4245f03fa6da4b4abc40edbab1fb2d0ac63a73d93 |
IEDL.DBID | 7X7 |
ISSN | 1932-6203 |
IngestDate | Fri Nov 26 17:12:32 EST 2021 Wed Aug 27 01:26:01 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:10:23 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 07 15:07:15 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 02:59:26 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 11:29:42 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 20:38:42 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 20:18:20 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 05:00:17 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 05:10:13 EDT 2025 Thu May 22 21:13:01 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:32:29 EST 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:10:04 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:43:29 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 3 |
Language | English |
License | This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Creative Commons Attribution License |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c6364-3f18197d30d6a6cfc5057b7a4245f03fa6da4b4abc40edbab1fb2d0ac63a73d93 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 Conceptualization: JM SM FM.Data curation: JM TE SM.Formal analysis: JM TE HB.Funding acquisition: JM FM.Investigation: JM TE JS.Methodology: JM SM FM.Project administration: JM FM.Resources: JM FM.Software: JM TE HB.Supervision: SM FM.Validation: JM TE.Visualization: JM SM TE.Writing – original draft: JM SM HB.Writing – review & editing: SM TE JS HB FM. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/1879179375?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
PMID | 28319133 |
PQID | 1879179375 |
PQPubID | 1436336 |
PageCount | e0174034 |
ParticipantIDs | plos_journals_1879179375 doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_cf92a431fc4147bc8c5e2c6c3ed520e7 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5358879 proquest_miscellaneous_1881762587 proquest_miscellaneous_1879659846 proquest_journals_1879179375 gale_infotracmisc_A486217813 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A486217813 gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A486217813 gale_incontextgauss_IOV_A486217813 gale_healthsolutions_A486217813 pubmed_primary_28319133 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0174034 crossref_citationtrail_10_1371_journal_pone_0174034 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20170320 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2017-03-20 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 3 year: 2017 text: 20170320 day: 20 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: San Francisco – name: San Francisco, CA USA |
PublicationTitle | PloS one |
PublicationTitleAlternate | PLoS One |
PublicationYear | 2017 |
Publisher | Public Library of Science Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Publisher_xml | – name: Public Library of Science – name: Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
References | BK Choi (ref2) 2010; 1 BW Klasen (ref29) 2004; 1 U Granacher (ref34) 2010; 32 PW Hodges (ref36) 1996; 101 M Asgari (ref14) 2015; 30 A Radebold (ref17) 2000; 25 M von Korff (ref30) 1992; 50 J Steele (ref26) 2014; 29 AE Hibbs (ref15) 2008; 38 L Vogt (ref27) 2001; 26 CJC Lamoth (ref40) 2005; 15 SM McGill (ref23) 2013; 56 JA Hwang (ref44) 2013; 25 J Cholewicki (ref9) 2000; 33 SP Gombatto (ref20) 2015; 42 B Bazrgari (ref38) 2009; 42 F Balagué (ref1) 2012; 379 R Müller (ref41) 2015; 48 A Radebold (ref16) 2001; 26 WS Marras (ref18) 2001; 26 T Zander (ref43) 2001; 16 AF Cordero (ref32) 2003; 18 RB Graham (ref13) 2014; 47 A Shahvarpour (ref11) 2014; 24 M Dreischarf (ref42) 2015; 48 FJ Vera-Garcia (ref19) 2007; 17 D Niederer (ref31) 2016; 17 TJ Trainor (ref7) 2004; 3 AF Mannion (ref4) 2012; 21 A Searle (ref45) 2015; 29 CJC Lamoth (ref24) 2006; 23 W Taube (ref35) 2007; 28 M Mazaheri (ref3) 2013; 37 SM McGill (ref22) 2003; 13 M Zedka (ref33) 1998; 8 M Milosevic (ref37) 2016; 26 A Dupeyron (ref10) 2010; 20 G Sassmannshausen (ref6) 2002; 21 WB Kibler (ref12) 2006; 36 MT Pedersen (ref39) 2004; 13 J Müller (ref25) 2015 J Borghuis (ref8) 2008; 38 P Hodges (ref21) 2001; 138 JF Seay (ref28) 2011; 26 CM Bono (ref5) 2004; 86 |
References_xml | – volume: 47 start-page: 1459 year: 2014 ident: ref13 article-title: Comparing the local dynamic stability of trunk movements between varsity athletes with and without non-specific low back pain publication-title: Journal of Biomechanics doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.033 – volume: 8 start-page: 3 year: 1998 ident: ref33 article-title: Electromyographic response of the trunk muscles to postural perturbation in sitting subjects publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/S1050-6411(96)00033-8 – volume: 13 start-page: 353 year: 2003 ident: ref22 article-title: Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/S1050-6411(03)00043-9 – volume: 138 start-page: 243 year: 2001 ident: ref21 article-title: Perturbed upper limb movements cause short-latency postural responses in trunk muscles publication-title: Exp Brain Res doi: 10.1007/s002210100693 – volume: 15 start-page: 23 year: 2005 ident: ref40 article-title: Effects of chronic low back pain on trunk coordination and back muscle activity during walking: changes in motor control publication-title: Eur Spine J doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0825-y – volume: 37 start-page: 12 year: 2013 ident: ref3 article-title: Low back pain and postural sway during quiet standing with and without sensory manipulation: A systematic review publication-title: Gait Posture doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.06.013 – volume: 17 start-page: 556 year: 2007 ident: ref19 article-title: Effects of abdominal stabilization maneuvers on the control of spine motion and stability against sudden trunk perturbations publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.07.004 – volume: 28 start-page: 999 year: 2007 ident: ref35 article-title: Differential Reflex Adaptations Following Sensorimotor and Strength Training in Young Elite Athletes publication-title: Int J Sports Med doi: 10.1055/s-2007-964996 – volume: 18 start-page: 47 year: 2003 ident: ref32 article-title: Multiple-step strategies to recover from stumbling perturbations publication-title: Gait Posture doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00160-1 – volume: 32 start-page: 107 year: 2010 ident: ref34 article-title: Effects of ankle fatigue on functional reflex activity during gait perturbations in young and elderly men publication-title: Gait Posture doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.03.016 – volume: 30 start-page: 682 year: 2015 ident: ref14 article-title: The effects of movement speed on kinematic variability and dynamic stability of the trunk in healthy individuals and low back pain patients publication-title: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.05.005 – volume: 56 start-page: 293 year: 2013 ident: ref23 article-title: Low back loads while walking and carrying: comparing the load carried in one hand or in both hands publication-title: Ergonomics doi: 10.1080/00140139.2012.752528 – volume: 101 start-page: 511 year: 1996 ident: ref36 article-title: A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography publication-title: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol – volume: 16 start-page: S73 issue: Suppl 1 year: 2001 ident: ref43 article-title: Estimation of muscle forces in the lumbar spine during upper-body inclination publication-title: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00108-X – volume: 38 start-page: 893 year: 2008 ident: ref8 article-title: The importance of sensory-motor control in providing core stability: implications for measurement and training publication-title: Sports Med doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838110-00002 – volume: 26 start-page: 572 year: 2011 ident: ref28 article-title: Low back pain status affects pelvis-trunk coordination and variability during walking and running publication-title: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.11.012 – volume: 25 start-page: 1189 year: 2013 ident: ref44 article-title: The effects of sensorimotor training on anticipatory postural adjustment of the trunk in chronic low back pain patients publication-title: J Phys Ther Sci doi: 10.1589/jpts.25.1189 – volume: 26 start-page: 724 year: 2001 ident: ref16 article-title: Impaired postural control of the lumbar spine is associated with delayed muscle response times in patients with chronic idiopathic low back pain publication-title: Spine doi: 10.1097/00007632-200104010-00004 – volume: 25 start-page: 947 year: 2000 ident: ref17 article-title: Muscle response pattern to sudden trunk loading in healthy individuals and in patients with chronic low back pain publication-title: Spine doi: 10.1097/00007632-200004150-00009 – volume: 42 start-page: 539 year: 2015 ident: ref20 article-title: Lumbar spine kinematics during walking in people with and people without low back pain publication-title: Gait Posture doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.08.010 – volume: 36 start-page: 189 year: 2006 ident: ref12 article-title: The role of core stability in athletic function publication-title: Sports Med doi: 10.2165/00007256-200636030-00001 – volume: 3 start-page: 41 year: 2004 ident: ref7 article-title: Etiology of low back pain in athletes publication-title: Curr Sports Med Rep doi: 10.1249/00149619-200402000-00008 – volume: 1 start-page: Doc07 year: 2004 ident: ref29 article-title: Validation and reliability of the German version of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire in primary care back pain patients publication-title: Psychosoc Med – volume: 86 start-page: 382 year: 2004 ident: ref5 article-title: Low-Back Pain in Athletes publication-title: J Bone Joint Surg doi: 10.2106/00004623-200402000-00027 – volume: 42 start-page: 1193 year: 2009 ident: ref38 article-title: Trunk response analysis under sudden forward perturbations using a kinematics-driven model publication-title: J Biomech doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.014 – volume: 50 start-page: 133 issue: 2 year: 1992 ident: ref30 article-title: Grading the severity of chronic pain publication-title: Pain doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4 – year: 2015 ident: ref25 article-title: Stumbling reactions during perturbed walking: Neuromuscular reflex activity and 3-D kinematics of the trunk—A pilot study publication-title: J Biomech – volume: 29 start-page: 1131 year: 2014 ident: ref26 article-title: Lumbar kinematic variability during gait in chronic low back pain and associations with pain, disability and isolated lumbar extension strength publication-title: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.09.013 – volume: 33 start-page: 1377 year: 2000 ident: ref9 article-title: Effects of external trunk loads on lumbar spine stability publication-title: J Biomech doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00118-4 – volume: 38 start-page: 995 year: 2008 ident: ref15 article-title: Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength publication-title: Sports Med doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838120-00004 – volume: 26 start-page: 1910 year: 2001 ident: ref27 article-title: Influences of nonspecific low back pain on three-dimensional lumbar spine kinematics in locomotion publication-title: Spine doi: 10.1097/00007632-200109010-00019 – volume: 21 start-page: 121 year: 2002 ident: ref6 article-title: Back pain in the young athlete publication-title: Clin Sports Med doi: 10.1016/S0278-5919(03)00061-9 – volume: 26 start-page: 2566 year: 2001 ident: ref18 article-title: Spine Loading Characteristics of Patients With Low Back Pain Compared With Asymptomatic Individuals publication-title: Spine doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00009 – volume: 29 start-page: 1155 year: 2015 ident: ref45 article-title: Exercise interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials publication-title: Clin Rehabil doi: 10.1177/0269215515570379 – volume: 23 start-page: 230 year: 2006 ident: ref24 article-title: How do persons with chronic low back pain speed up and slow down? publication-title: Gait Posture doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.02.006 – volume: 26 start-page: 94 year: 2016 ident: ref37 article-title: Anticipation of direction and time of perturbation modulates the onset latency of trunk muscle responses during sitting perturbations publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.12.003 – volume: 20 start-page: 426 year: 2010 ident: ref10 article-title: Influence of back muscle fatigue on lumbar reflex adaptation during sudden external force perturbations publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.05.004 – volume: 48 start-page: 560 year: 2015 ident: ref42 article-title: In vivo implant forces acting on a vertebral body replacement during upper body flexion publication-title: J Biomech doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.007 – volume: 48 start-page: 1009 year: 2015 ident: ref41 article-title: Low back pain affects trunk as well as lower limb movements during walking and running publication-title: J Biomech doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.042 – volume: 379 start-page: 482 year: 2012 ident: ref1 article-title: Non-specific low back pain publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7 – volume: 24 start-page: 394 year: 2014 ident: ref11 article-title: Trunk response to sudden forward perturbations – Effects of preload and sudden load magnitudes, posture and abdominal antagonistic activation publication-title: J Electromyogr Kinesiol doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2014.03.007 – volume: 21 start-page: 1301 year: 2012 ident: ref4 article-title: Spine stabilisation exercises in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a good clinical outcome is not associated with improved abdominal muscle function publication-title: Eur Spine J doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2155-9 – volume: 13 start-page: 548 year: 2004 ident: ref39 article-title: Training can modify back muscle response to sudden trunk loading publication-title: Eur Spine J doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0679-3 – volume: 1 start-page: CD006555 year: 2010 ident: ref2 article-title: Exercises for prevention of recurrences of low-back pain publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 17 start-page: 507 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: ref31 article-title: Medicine in spine exercise (MiSpEx) for nonspecific low back pain patients: study protocol for a multicentre, single-blind randomized controlled trial publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1645-1 |
SSID | ssj0053866 |
Score | 2.2112813 |
Snippet | Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison... Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in... BACKGROUND:Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in... Background Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in... |
SourceID | plos doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | e0174034 |
SubjectTerms | Adult Analysis Back pain Back Pain - physiopathology Biology and Life Sciences Biomechanical Phenomena Causes of Coefficient of variation Contraction Data processing Deceleration Electromyography Female Gait Humans Kinematics Latency Male Mathematical analysis Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Models, Biological Muscle contraction Muscle function Muscle, Skeletal - physiology Muscle, Skeletal - physiopathology Muscles Neuromuscular junction Pain Pain management Perturbation methods Physical Sciences Physiological aspects Planes Posture Posture - physiology Reflex - physiology Rehabilitation Research and Analysis Methods Segments Sports medicine Stability Systematic review Thorax Three dimensional motion Torso - physiology Torso - physiopathology Trunk muscles Variability Walking Walking - physiology |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELZQT1wQ5dWFAgYhAYe0ie3YybEgqoIESEBRb5GfUHWbRM2uoD-Jf8lM7F01qKIcuMbjyJm3nfE3hDzz6BgDKzPGKpkJrXxWGyYy6QqP2w3Lxtqc9x_kwaF4d1QeXWj1hTVhER44Mm7XhpppiHLBikIoYytbemal5d6VLPfjPXKIeavNVPTBYMVSpotyXBW7SS47fdf6HdBBkXMxCUQjXv_aK2_08264LOX8s3LyQijav0lupByS7sW1b5Jrvr1FNpOVDvRFgpJ-eZv8iuDEA-0CHZboY-gPPcfTcdr7M4g2Jh7Y0a6lI7Ll6TIWplJY79z_pHjtAbtLUN06ugC5-8xhP4CI5UFjDyB8O-SRdHG2bE_ocUvj5cpzmurgh3G20faE9hqGh_PTftGNWLGwKoMnQcMdcrj_5svrgyw1Z8is5FJkPEBuUCvHcye1tMHiTscojX9SQ86Dlk4LI7SxIvfOaFMEw1yuYbZW3NX8LtloQRxbhFaVrhwrvdMqCG_zyoBi5aYOjDsTKjUjfCWpxibkcmygMW_G33EKdjCR8Q3Kt0nynZFsPauPyB1X0L9CJVjTIu72-AC0sUna2FyljTPyGFWoiXxee49mT8DOsVBVwWfk6UiB2BstFvd808thaN5-_PoPRJ8_TYieJ6LQATusThcq4JsQ02tCuT2hBA9iJ8NbqPArrgwNdqBHx61KmLkygsuHn6yH8aVYsNf6bhlpZFlDdvs3mqqAWFyihO9Fu1pzH7Leoi44rE1NLG4inulIe_x9hEcveQmRs77_P-T5gFxnmMflHMLJNtkAQ_IPIQtdmEejw_kNr6CMrQ priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access dbid: M48 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3db9MwELdGkRAviI2PFQYYhAQ8pEpiJ04eEBqIaSAVJGBob5E_x7QuCU0r1j-J_5K7xI0IKoPX-i5yfZ-2z78j5KlFx-jiJIjjLA24FDbIVcyD1EQWtxs6bmtzph_SwyP-_jg53iLrnq1-AZuNWzvsJ3U0n00uvq9egcG_bLs2iGjNNKmr0k5Aw3jI-BVyFWKTQFOd8v5eAaw7Tf0Dur9xDgJUi-Pfe-tRPauaTanonxWVv4Wog5vkhs8t6X6nDNtky5Y75NrU357vkG1vyA197tGmX9wiPzv84oZWjjZLdEP0h5zhATqt7RwCkurO9GhV0hb88nzZ1a5SmPrMXlB8GYENKKgsDV2AatjAYMuADu6Ddm2C8OuQatLFfFme0dOSdu8vV9SXyjctt5L6jNYShpvVeb2oWjhZmJXCw6LmNjk6ePvlzWHg-zcEOmUpD5iD9CEXhoUmlal2GjdDSki8bHUhczI1kisuleahNUqqyKnYhBK4pWAmZ3fIqATJ7BKaZTIzcWKNFI5bHWYKdC9UuYuZUS4TY8LWQiu0BzfHHhuzor2xE7DJ6WRQoKgLL-oxCXquugP3-Af9a9SHnhahudsfqvlJ4S290C6PJaRlTvOIC6UzndhYp5pZk8Shhak-Qm0qunXuHUyxz2FzGYksYmPypKVAeI4S639O5LJpincfv_4H0edPA6JnnshVsBxa-jcX8J8Q9mtAuTegBCejB8O7qPvrVWkKbFKPvl0kwLm2h83Dj_th_CjW9JW2WnY0aZJDAnwZTRZBuE5Qwnc7E-tXHxLjKI8YzE0MjG8gnuFIefqtRVBPWALBNb93-dTvk-sxJnEhg1iyR0ZgIvYBpKAL9bD1Kr8An3SMdA priority: 102 providerName: Scholars Portal |
Title | Effects of sudden walking perturbations on neuromuscular reflex activity and three-dimensional motion of the trunk in healthy controls and back pain symptomatic subjects |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28319133 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1879179375 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1879659846 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1881762587 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5358879 https://doaj.org/article/cf92a431fc4147bc8c5e2c6c3ed520e7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174034 |
Volume | 12 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lb9QwELaglRCXipZHC2UxCAk4pE1iJ05OqK1aClILKhT1FvlZqm6TsNkV9ML_4V8yk3gDQVXh4sN6HHk9D4_H428IeW7RMLo4CeI4SwMuhQ1yFfMgNZHF44aO29ycg8N0_5i_O0lOfMCt8WmVc5vYGmpTaYyRb2JVbBQmkbyuvwZYNQpvV30JjZtkEaHLMKVLnPQHLtDlNPXP5ZiINj13NuqqtBsgiTxkfLAdtaj9vW1eqMdVc5Xj-Xf-5B8b0t4dsuQ9SbrVsX6Z3LDlCrl14O_KV8iyV9uGvvTY0q_ukp8dWnFDK0ebGRod-k2OMVxOazuB7Ud1ETxalbSFuryYdZmqFKY-tt8pvoPAchNUloZOQRBsYLBAQAfuQbuiQPh1cCzpdDIrz-lZSbvXlpfUJ8Y37Wgl9TmtJXQ3lxf1tGrBY2FWCkNDzT1yvLf7aWc_8NUaAp2ylAfMgbOQC8NCk8pUO41HHyUkXq26kDmZGskVl0rz0BolVeRUbEIJo6VgJmf3yUIJnFklNMtkZuLEGikctzrMFEhaqHIXM6NcJtYImzOt0B7KHCtqjIv2fk7AkabjQYGsLjyr10jQj6o7KI9_0G-jPPS0CMTd_lBNTguv14V2eSzBCXOaR1wonenExjrVzJokDi1M9QlKU9Gtc29Oii0OR8lIZBFbI89aCgTjKDHb51TOmqZ4-_7zfxB9PBoQvfBEroLl0NK_sID_hCBfA8r1ASWYFD3oXkXZn69KU_xWPhg514eru5_23fhRzOArbTXraNIkB3f3Oposgs05QQ4_6FSsX31wg6M8YjA3MVC-AXuGPeXZlxYvPWEJbKX5w-un_ojcjtFlCxnsHOtkAVTEPgaHc6pGrVWBNtuJsN17MyKL27uHH45GbQgH2gOeYftj9xfTK40G |
linkProvider | ProQuest |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Lb9QwELaqIgEXRMujhUINAgGHtImd5wGh8qi29IEELdpb8Cul6jYJm12V_iQu_EZmYm8gqCpcel2PI69n_M3YHn9DyBODwFiwyGMsjb1QJMbLJAu9WAcGtxuKtbk5u3vx4CB8P4yGc-Tn7C0MplXOMLEFal0pPCNfx6rYaExJ9Kr-5mHVKLxdnZXQsGaxbc5OYcvWvNx6C_p9ytjmu_03A89VFfBUzOPQ4wU4tSzR3NexiFWhMESXicArwMLnhYi1CGUopAp9o6WQQSGZ9gX0FgnXSL4EkH8FHK-PKyoZdhs8wI44ds_zeBKsO2tYq6vSrIHlhz4Pe-6vrRLQ-YL5elQ15wW6f-dr_uEAN2-SGy5ypRvW1BbInCkXydVddze_SBYcTDT0ueOyfnGL_LDsyA2tCtpMEeToqRjh8TytzRjcnbQnhrQqaUuteTK1mbEUhj4y3ym-u8DyFlSUmk7A8IynsSCBJROhtggRfh0CWToZT8tjelRS-7rzjLpE_KbtLYU6prWA5ubspJ5ULVktjEriUVRzmxxcih7vkPkSNLNEaJqKVLPIaJEUoVF-KsGyfZkVjGtZpMky4TOl5cpRp2MFj1He3gcmsIWyOshR1blT9TLxul61pQ75h_xrtIdOFom_2x-q8WHucCRXRcYE2F6hwiBMpEpVZJiKFTc6Yr6Boa6iNeV2njv4yjdC2LoGSRrwZfK4lUDyjxKziw7FtGnyrQ-f_0Po08ee0DMnVFQwHUq4Fx3wn5BUrCe50pMECFO95iW0_dmsNPnvxQ49Z-vh_OZHXTN-FDMGS1NNrUwcZRBeXySTBhAMRKjhu3aJdbMPYXeQBRzGlvQWX089_Zby6GvLzx7xCFx3du_ioa-Sa4P93Z18Z2tv-z65zjBc9Dl4rRUyD8vFPIBgdyIftghDyZfLhrRfIwHE2A |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3dT9RAEN8QTIgvRvCDU5TVaNSHQrvbdnsPxqBIQASNiuGt7icSjrbSuyB_kv-Cf50z7V61hqAvvN7ONns7M7-Z3Z0PQh5ZBEbHkoCxLA1iKWwwVCwOUhNZPG5o1sTm7Oymm3vxm_1kf4b8nObCYFjlFBMboDalxjvyVeyKjcIkklXnwyLer2-8qL4F2EEKX1qn7TRaEdm2Z6dwfKufb60Drx8ztvH606vNwHcYCHTK0zjgDgzcUBgemlSm2ml015WQ-BzoQu5kamSsYql0HFqjpIqcYiaUMFsKbrAQE8D_FcGTCHVM7HeHPcCRNPWpelxEq14yVqqysCugBXHI454pbDoGdHZhthqV9XlO79-xm38Yw43r5Jr3YulaK3bzZMYWC2Rux7_TL5B5Dxk1ferrWj-7QX60lZJrWjpaTxDw6Kkc4VU9rewJmD7V3h7SsqBNmc3jSRslS2HpI_udYg4GtrqgsjB0DEJoA4PNCdrCIrRtSIRfB6eWjk8mxRE9LGib6XlGfVB-3cxWUh_RSsJwfXZcjcumcC2sSuG1VH2T7F0KH2-R2QI4s0holsnMsMQaKVxsdZgpkPJQDR3jRrlMDAifMi3Xvow6dvMY5c3boIDjVMuDHFmde1YPSNDNqtoyIv-gf4ny0NFiEfDmh_LkIPeYkms3ZBIcQKfjKBZKZzqxTKeaW5Ow0MJSl1Ga8nafOyjL12I4xkYii_iAPGwosBBIgSp1ICd1nW-9-_wfRB8_9IieeCJXwnZo6bM74D9hgbEe5VKPEuBM94YXUfanu1LnvxUfZk714fzhB90wfhSjBwtbTlqaNBmCq30RTRaBY5Agh2-3KtbtPrjg0TDisDbRU74ee_ojxeHXplZ7whMw48M7Fy99mcwBmOVvt3a375KrDD3HkIMBWyKzoC32Hvi9Y3W_ARhKvlw2ov0CEl7JDg |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects+of+sudden+walking+perturbations+on+neuromuscular+reflex+activity+and+three-dimensional+motion+of+the+trunk+in+healthy+controls+and+back+pain+symptomatic+subjects&rft.jtitle=PloS+one&rft.au=Mueller%2C+Juliane&rft.au=Engel%2C+Tilman&rft.au=Mueller%2C+Steffen&rft.au=Stoll%2C+Josefine&rft.date=2017-03-20&rft.pub=Public+Library+of+Science&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0174034&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0174034&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK&rft.externalDocID=4321021757 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1932-6203&client=summon |