Evaluating the effect of co-contraction in optimization models

Hughes, R. E.; Bean, James C.; Chaffin, Don B.

doi:10.1016/0021-9290(95)95277-c

Cited by 54 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Published compression loads during industrial lifting tasks range from 3400 to 13,000 N (Karwowski, Caldwell, & Gaddie, 1994;Kumar, 1996;Norman et al, 1998). However, the estimates of spinal load during pushing ignore the influence of trunk muscle cocontraction, which can dramatically increase the spinal load (Granata & Marras, 1995b;Hughes et al, 1995). Published models (Gardner-Morse & Stokes, 1998) and empirical data (Cholewicki et al, 1997;Granata & Orishimo, 2001) suggest that antagonistic cocontraction is recruited to augment spinal stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spinal load can be estimated from the vector sum of musclegenerated forces and external forces, F Ext .Musclegenerated forces can be estimated from the equilibrium trunk moment, M LS . This underestimates spinal load because muscle cocontraction and antagonistic recruitment patterns are ignored (Granata & Marras, 1995b;Hughes, Bean, & Chaffin, 1995). Future efforts must include muscle recruitment patterns in calculations of spinal load during pushing (Marras & Granata, 1997).…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

Pushing and pulling tasks are increasingly prevalent in industrial workplaces. Few studies have investigated low-back biomechanical risk factors associated with pushing, and we are aware of none that has quantified spinal stability during pushing exertions. Data recorded from 11 healthy participants performing isometric pushing exertions demonstrated that trunk posture, vector force direction of the applied load, and trunk moment were influenced (p < .01) by exertion level, elevation of the handle for the pushing task, and foot position. A biomechanical model was used to analyze the posture and hand force data gathered from the pushing exertions. Model results indicate that pushing exertions provide significantly (p < .01) less stability than lifting when antagonistic cocontraction is ignored. However, stability can be augmented by recruitment of muscle cocontraction. Results suggest that cocontraction may be recruited to compensate for the fact that equilibrium mechanics provide little intrinsic trunk stiffness and stability during pushing exertions. If one maintains stability by means of cocontraction, additional spinal load is thereby created, increasing the risk of overload injury. Thus it is important to consider muscle cocontraction when evaluating the biomechanics of pushing exertions. Potential applications of this research include improved assessment of biomechanical risk factors for the design of industrial pushing tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Granata

Bennett

2005

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

show abstract

“…There is evidence that the nervous system considers many objectives when selecting muscle activity patterns, including energy efficiency (Anderson and Pandy, 2001), joint stability (Stokes and Gardner-Morse, 2001;Brown and Potvin, 2005), joint loading (Seireg and Arvikar, 1973;Yettram and Jackman, 1982), joint discomfort (Marler et al, 2009), and muscle stress (Crowninshield and Brand, 1981;An et al, 1984;Hughes et al, 1995). These objectives often vary with properties of the task or environment (Milner and Cloutier, 1993;Burdet et al, 2001;Selen et al, 2006), and compete with one another for some motor tasks (Stokes and Gardner-Morse, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Increase in joint stability at the expense of energy efficiency correlates with force variability during a fatiguing task

Cashaback

Cluff

2015

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

“…This approach ignores the actions of individual fascicles of the muscle groups, and also considers the action of each muscle only at the analyzed cross section, and not at other anatomical levels which it crosses. Furthermore, there is a wide reported range of directions for the muscle lines of action in the trunk (Han et al, 1992;Hughes et al, 1995;McGill, 1992McGill, , 1996 to which the calculated spinal and muscle forces are sensitive (Nussbaum et al, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature

Stokes

Gardner-Morse

1999

Journal of Biomechanics

138

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

This paper describes the anatomy of the musculature crossing the lumbar spine in a standardized form to provide data generally suitable for static biomechanical analyses of muscle and spinal forces. The muscular anatomy from several sources was quantified and transformed to the mean bony anatomy of four young healthy adults measured from standing stereo-radiographs. The origins, insertions and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) of 180 muscle slips which act on the lumbar spine are given relative to the bony anatomy defined by the locations of 12 thoracic and five lumbar vertebrae, and the sacrum, and the shape and positions of the 24 ribs. The broad oblique abdominal muscles are each represented by six vectors and an appropriate proportion of the total PCSA was assigned to each to represent the muscle biomechanics.

show abstract

Evaluating the effect of co-contraction in optimization models

Cited by 54 publications

References 18 publications

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Low-Back Biomechanics and Static Stability During Isometric Pushing

Increase in joint stability at the expense of energy efficiency correlates with force variability during a fatiguing task

Quantitative anatomy of the lumbar musculature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About