Low back pain suppresses preparatory and triggered upper-limb activation after sudden upper-limb loading.
ABSTRACT A cross-sectional comparative study between healthy controls and patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).
To assess the effect of chronic LBP on biceps brachii muscle activation during sudden upper-limb loading.
Chronic LBP is related to altered trunk muscle function. However, it is not known if these changes are also found in upper-limb function, indicating a general effect.
Surface electromyographic recordings were made from the biceps brachii bilaterally from 22 control subjects without chronic LBP and 29 patients with chronic LBP. Electromyography was recorded during expected and unexpected limb loading, with the activation pattern recorded for analysis at 150 milliseconds before loading, and 3 consecutive 50 milliseconds periods following loading. RESULTS.: Chronic LBP patients had decreased biceps brachii activation before expected perturbation (P = 0.035) and during the third 50-millisecond period (from 100 to 150 milliseconds) after unexpected perturbation (P = 0.010). During the first 2, 50-millisecond periods (from 0 to 100 milliseconds) after the perturbation, the activation was similar.
Chronic LBP did not affect reflex activation of biceps brachii muscles but decreased preparatory and triggered reactions. The finding indicates that back pain may disturb higher level information processing in motor control.
- SourceAvailable from: free.fr[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this study, the equilibrium-point hypothesis of muscle-torque generation is used to evaluate the changes in central control parameters in the process of postural-maintenance learning. Muscle torque is described by a linear spring equation with modifiable stiffness, viscosity, and equilibrium angle. The stiffness is considered to be the estimation of the central command for antagonist-muscle coactivation and the equilibrium angle to be the estimation of the reciprocal command for a shift of invariant characteristics of the joint. In the experiments, a load applied to the forearm was released. The subjects were instructed to maintain their forearm in the initial horizontal position. Five sessions of approximately twenty trials each were carried out by eight subjects. During two "control" series, the load release was triggered by the experimenter. During three "learning" series, the load supported by one forearm was released by the subject's other hand. The elbow-joint angle, the angular acceleration, and the external load on the postural forearm were recorded. These recordings as well as anthropometric forearm characteristics were used to calculate the elbow-joint torque (which we called "experimental"). Linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the equilibrium angle, joint stiffness, and viscosity at each trial. The "theoretical" torque was calculated using a linear spring equation with the found parameters. The good agreement observed between experimental and theoretical joint-torque time courses, apart from the very early period following unloading, argues in favor of the idea that the movement was mainly performed under a constant central command presetting the joint stiffness and the equilibrium angle. An overall increase in the stiffness occurred simultaneously with a decrease in the equilibrium angle during the "learning" series in all the subjects. This suggests that subjects learn to compensate for the disturbing effects of unloading by increasing the joint stiffness. The mechanism possibly responsible for the presetting of the central control parameters is discussed.Experimental Brain Research 02/1999; 124(1):107-17. · 2.22 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effects of predictability of load magnitude on anticipatory and triggered grip-force adjustments were studied as nine normal subjects used a precision grip to lift, hold, and replace an instrumented test object. Experience with a predictable stimulus has been shown to enhance magnitude scaling of triggered postural responses to different amplitudes of perturbations. However, this phenomenon, known as a central-set effect, has not been tested systematically for grip-force responses in the hand. In our study, predictability was manipulated by applying load perturbations of different magnitudes to the test object under conditions in which the upcoming load magnitude was presented repeatedly or under conditions in which the load magnitudes were presented randomly, each with two different pre-load grip conditions (unconstrained and constrained). In constrained conditions, initial grip forces were maintained near the minimum level necessary to prevent pre-loaded object slippage, while in unconstrained conditions, no initial grip force restrictions were imposed. The effect of predictable (blocked) and unpredictable (random) load presentations on scaling of anticipatory and triggered grip responses was tested by comparing the slopes of linear regressions between the imposed load and grip response magnitude. Anticipatory and triggered grip force responses were scaled to load magnitude in all conditions. However, regardless of pre-load grip force constraint, the gains (slopes) of grip responses relative to load magnitudes were greater when the magnitude of the upcoming load was predictable than when the load increase was unpredictable. In addition, a central-set effect was evidenced by the fewer number of drop trials in the predictable relative to unpredictable load conditions. Pre-load grip forces showed the greatest set effects. However, grip responses showed larger set effects, based on prediction, when pre-load grip force was constrained to lower levels. These results suggest that anticipatory processes pertaining to load magnitude permit the response gain of both voluntary and triggered rapid grip force adjustments to be set, at least partially, prior to perturbation onset. Comparison of anticipatory set effects for reactive torque and lower extremity EMG postural responses triggered by surface translation perturbations suggests a more general rule governing anticipatory processes.Experimental Brain Research 03/2000; 130(3):298-308. · 2.22 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cross-sectional study of 25 male golfers with chronic low back pain and 16 healthy controls of similar age. To assess the association between functional capacity of the back extensors and the quadriceps muscles. Chronic low back pain has been shown to lead to changes in muscle activation patterns of the abdominals and the gluteus maximus. The effect of chronic low back pain on lower limb function has not been investigated. Back extensor endurance was assessed by a Biering-Sørensen test; surface EMG was measured bilaterally on the erector spinae at T12 and L4--L5. Muscle inhibition in the quadriceps was assessed by applying an electrical twitch to the maximally contracted muscle. The associations between holding time, decrease in EMG median frequency (i.e., the slope of the regression line on median frequency vs. time), and muscle inhibition were compared for study participants with chronic low back pain and controls. Mean back extensor holding times were 88 +/- 30 seconds for study participants with chronic low back pain and 92 +/- 17 seconds for controls. Both groups showed bilaterally similar decreases in EMG median frequency at L4--L5 and T12; however, the slopes were significantly steeper at L4--L5 than T12. Study participants with chronic low back pain with poor back endurance had significantly higher muscle inhibition compared with study participants with chronic low back pain with good back endurance, whereas such an association was not evident in healthy controls. In golfers with chronic low back pain reduced back endurance was associated with significant inhibition of the knee extensors, indicating that this muscle group cannot be activated to a full extent. These findings suggest a possible association between back extensor fatigability and knee extensor dysfunction in male golfers with chronic low back pain.Spine 09/2001; 26(16):E361-6. · 2.16 Impact Factor