Quantitative assessment of co-contraction in cervical musculature.

The co-contraction of cervical musculature is quantitatively assessed. For the modeling procedure, electromyographic (EMG) signal and anatomical data of the neck musculature were used. EMG signals were collected from eight sites of the neck bilaterally using Ag-AgCl surface electrodes from ten adult male subjects. The subjects performed voluntary isometric contractions gradually developing to maximum efforts in flexion, extension, left lateral bending and right lateral bending. The EMG-assisted optimization modeling procedure was used to estimate muscle forces. To quantify co-contraction, muscle forces were decomposed into task subset and co-contraction subset of muscle forces. To show the degree of co-contraction, 'co-contraction ratio' was defined as the proportion of co-contraction muscle forces to total muscle forces. The ranges of co-contraction ratio are 0.08-0.16 during extension, 0.30-0.41 during flexion, 0.27-0.32 during left lateral bending, and 0.30-0.36 during right lateral bending. In all cases, co-contraction ratios increase as external moments increase. The ratios of compressive spinal loads from the co-contraction subset of muscle forces to those from total muscle forces are similar to co-contraction ratios during the whole ramp period. This study provides data demonstrating quantitative measures of the contribution of muscle co-contraction to cervical spinal loads.

[1]  I A Stokes,et al.  Lumbar spine maximum efforts and muscle recruitment patterns predicted by a model with multijoint muscles and joints with stiffness. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  I. Stokes,et al.  The Effects of Abdominal Muscle Coactivation on Lumbar Spine Stability , 1998, Spine.

[3]  C. E. Clauser,et al.  Weight, volume, and center of mass of segments of the human body , 1969 .

[4]  R Vanderby,et al.  Muscle forces and spinal loads at C4/5 level during isometric voluntary efforts. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[5]  A. Schultz,et al.  Analysis of Loads on the Lumbar Spine , 1981, Spine.

[6]  J. Cholewicki,et al.  Stabilizing Function of Trunk Flexor‐Extensor Muscles Around a Neutral Spine Posture , 1997, Spine.

[7]  L. Haugh,et al.  Trunk Extensor EMG – Torque Relationship , 1987, Spine.

[8]  P Vink,et al.  A functional subdivision of the lumbar extensor musculature. Recruitment patterns and force-RA-EMG relationships under isometric conditions. , 1987, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  M Solomonow,et al.  Electromyogram coactivation patterns of the elbow antagonist muscles during slow isokinetic movement , 1988, Experimental Neurology.

[10]  Hyeonki Choi,et al.  Comparison of Biomechanical Human Neck Models: Muscle Forces and Spinal Loads at C4/5 Level , 1999 .

[11]  R. Hughes,et al.  Evaluating the effect of co-contraction in optimization models. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  A B Schultz,et al.  Co‐contraction of lumbar muscles during the development of time‐varying triaxial moments , 1995, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[13]  A. Schultz,et al.  Analysis and measurement of neck loads , 1988, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[14]  R. Norman,et al.  Comparison of muscle forces and joint load from an optimization and EMG assisted lumbar spine model: towards development of a hybrid approach. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  D. Winter,et al.  Quantitative assessment of co-contraction at the ankle joint in walking. , 1985, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  J Cholewicki,et al.  EMG assisted optimization: a hybrid approach for estimating muscle forces in an indeterminate biomechanical model. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.