2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.06.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kinematic and EMG characteristics of simple shoulder movements with proprioception and visual feedback

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it has been argued that the examination should be functional and be conducted under normal movement conditions (Newcomer et al, 2000). Some studies also took the eye-opened condition as standard procedure (Brindle et al, 2006;Lee et al, 2005). Thirdly, there were no significant difference of the cervical ROM between the healthy and the neck pain subjects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it has been argued that the examination should be functional and be conducted under normal movement conditions (Newcomer et al, 2000). Some studies also took the eye-opened condition as standard procedure (Brindle et al, 2006;Lee et al, 2005). Thirdly, there were no significant difference of the cervical ROM between the healthy and the neck pain subjects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, it is not uncommon to study the effects of visual feedback about the overall task performance using EMG as the outcome variable to represent neuromuscular control (Brindle et al, 2006;Kojovic et al, 2011), since improvement in task performance typically results from better neuromuscular control. For cycling, cadence is a straightforward indicator of cycling performance and thus can be easily comprehended for patients of various education and cognitive background.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concerning the activation level, either positive linear, quadratic, or lack of any relationship has been observed between activation level and movement velocity depending on the studied muscle (Neptune et al, 1997). When the velocity of movement increased, these relationships have been reported for the activation level of agonist and/or antagonist muscles during mono-and multi-joint upper limb movements performed at slow (Antony and Keir, 2010;Brindle et al, 2006;Marsden et al, 1983) and high velocities (Illyés and Kiss, 2005). These results seem to be applicable to tennis movements, but this needs to be demonstrated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%