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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 12; no. 3; p. e0174034
Main Authors Mueller, Juliane, Engel, Tilman, Mueller, Steffen, Stoll, Josefine, Baur, Heiner, Mayer, Frank
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 20.03.2017
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet 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