Effects of antagonistic co-contraction on differences between electromyography based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces

Estimates of spinal forces are quite sensitive to model assumptions, especially regarding antagonistic co-contraction. Optimization based models predict co-contraction to be absent, while electromyography (EMG) based models take co-contraction into account, but usually assume equal activation of deep and superficial parts of a muscle. The aim of the present study was to compare EMG based and optimization based estimates of spinal forces in a wide range of work tasks. Data obtained from ten subjects performing a total of 28 tasks were analysed with an EMG driven model and three optimization models, which were specifically designed to test the effects of the above assumptions. Estimates of peak spinal forces obtained using the different modelling approaches were similar for total muscle force and its compression component (on average EMG based predictions were 5% higher) and were closely related (R > 0.92), while differences in predictions of the peak shear component of muscle force were more substantial (with up to 39% lower estimates in optimization based models, R > 0.79). The results show that neither neglecting antagonistic co-contraction, nor assuming equal activation of deep and superficial muscles, has a major effect on estimates of spinal forces. The disparity between shear force predictions was due to an overestimation of activity of the lateral part of the internal oblique muscle by the optimization models, which is explained by the cost function preferentially recruiting larger muscles. This suggests that a penalty for active muscle mass should be included in the cost function used for predicting trunk muscle recruitment.

[1]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Lumbar muscle size and locations from CT scans of 96 women of age 40 to 63 years. , 1990, Clinical biomechanics.

[2]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Abdominal muscles contribute in a minor way to peak spinal compression in lifting. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  S M McGill,et al.  A revised anatomical model of the abdominal musculature for torso flexion efforts. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Fractures of the lumbar vertebral endplate in the etiology of low back pain: a hypothesis on the causative role of spinal compression in aspecific low back pain. , 1999, Medical hypotheses.

[5]  P. Huijing Muscular Force Transmission Necessitates a Multilevel Integrative Approach to the Analysis of Function of Skeletal Muscle , 2003, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[6]  M. Pope,et al.  Spinal biomechanics. , 1993, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[7]  R. Norman,et al.  A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. , 1998, Clinical biomechanics.

[8]  I. Kingma,et al.  Evidence for a role of antagonistic cocontraction in controlling trunk stiffness during lifting. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  I. Kingma,et al.  Validation of a full body 3-D dynamic linked segment model , 1996 .

[10]  J. H. van Dieen Preliminary validation of a model to estimate tissue loads in the lumbosacral spine , 1998 .

[11]  Richard E. Hughes,et al.  Choice of optimization models for predicting spinal forces in a three-dimensional analysis of heavy work , 1995 .

[12]  R. Hughes,et al.  Evaluation of muscle force prediction models of the lumbar trunk using surface electromyography , 1994, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[13]  Jorrit P. Jansen,et al.  The Importance of Antagonistic Cocontraction of Trunk Muscles for Spinal Loads during Lifting and Pulling Tasks: Implications for Modeling Approaches , 2000 .

[14]  Jaap H. van Dieën,et al.  Sensitivity of single-equivalent trunk extensor muscle models to anatomical and functional assumptions. , 1999 .

[15]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Total trunk muscle force and spinal compression are lower in asymmetric moments as compared to pure extension moments. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  R. Norman,et al.  Mechanically corrected EMG for the continuous estimation of erector spinae muscle loading during repetitive lifting , 2004, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[17]  A. Hof,et al.  An explicit expression for the moment in multibody systems. , 1992, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  J R Potvin,et al.  Trunk Muscle and Lumbar Ligament Contributions to Dynamic Lifts with Varying Degrees of Trunk Flexion , 1991, Spine.

[19]  I. Stokes,et al.  Spinal stiffness increases with axial load: another stabilizing consequence of muscle action. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[20]  S. McGill Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque: Implications for lumbar mechanics , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[21]  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.

[22]  C. E. Clauser,et al.  Anthropometric Relationships of Body and Body Segment Moments of Inertia , 1980 .

[23]  W. Marras,et al.  Cost-benefit of muscle cocontraction in protecting against spinal instability. , 2000, Spine.

[24]  Peter A Huijing,et al.  Myofascial force transmission between a single muscle head and adjacent tissues: length effects of head III of rat EDL. , 2003, Journal of applied physiology.

[25]  R. D. Woittiez,et al.  A three‐dimensional muscle model: A quantified relation between form and function of skeletal muscles , 1984, Journal of morphology.

[26]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Are recruitment patterns of the trunk musculature compatible with a synergy based on the maximization of endurance? , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[27]  W. Marras,et al.  The Influence of Trunk Muscle Coactivity on Dynamic Spinal Loads , 1995, Spine.

[28]  P A Costigan,et al.  Geometry of adult rectus abdominis and erector spinae muscles*. , 1985, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[29]  J. H. Dieën,et al.  Directionality of anticipatory activation of trunk muscles in a lifting task depends on load knowledge , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  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.

[31]  Peter A Huijing,et al.  Myofascial force transmission: muscle relative position and length determine agonist and synergist muscle force. , 2003, Journal of applied physiology.

[32]  A. Schultz,et al.  Identification of dynamic myoelectric signal-to-force models during isometric lumbar muscle contractions. , 1994, Journal of biomechanics.

[33]  R W Norman,et al.  Effects of an anatomically detailed erector spinae model on L4/L5 disc compression and shear. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[34]  S. Gandevia,et al.  Deep and Superficial Fibers of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Are Differentially Active During Voluntary Arm Movements , 2002, Spine.

[35]  G. W. Bennett,et al.  Regression models for the prediction of dynamic L4/L5 compression forces during lifting , 1992 .

[36]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Sensitivity of single-equivalent trunk extensor muscle models to anatomical and functional assumptions. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[37]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Reporting net moments about the lumbar spine , 2001 .

[38]  R. Norman,et al.  1986 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: Partitioning of the L4 - L5 Dynamic Moment into Disc, Ligamentous, and Muscular Components During Lifting , 1986, Spine.

[39]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Lumbar muscle force estimation using a subject-invariant 5-parameter EMG-based model. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[40]  Mack Gardner-Morse,et al.  Measurement of a spinal motion segment stiffness matrix. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[41]  W. Marras,et al.  An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting. , 1995, Journal of biomechanics.

[42]  J H van Dieën,et al.  Asymmetric low back loading in asymmetric lifting movements is not prevented by pelvic twist. , 1998, Journal of biomechanics.

[43]  D B Chaffin,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of materials handling manipulators in short distance transfers of moderate mass objects: joint strength, spine forces and muscular antagonism. , 1999, Ergonomics.