Cargando…

Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging

The purpose of this study was to quantify head motion between isometric erector spinae (ES) contraction strategies, paradigms, and intensities in the development of a neuroimaging protocol for the study of neural activity associated with trunk motor control in individuals with low back pain. Ten hea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saunders, Elizabeth, Clark, Brian C., Clark, Leatha A., Grooms, Dustin R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: De Gruyter 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7712160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33335758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2020-0116
_version_ 1783618310087114752
author Saunders, Elizabeth
Clark, Brian C.
Clark, Leatha A.
Grooms, Dustin R.
author_facet Saunders, Elizabeth
Clark, Brian C.
Clark, Leatha A.
Grooms, Dustin R.
author_sort Saunders, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to quantify head motion between isometric erector spinae (ES) contraction strategies, paradigms, and intensities in the development of a neuroimaging protocol for the study of neural activity associated with trunk motor control in individuals with low back pain. Ten healthy participants completed two contraction strategies; (1) a supine upper spine (US) press and (2) a supine lower extremity (LE) press. Each contraction strategy was performed at electromyographic (EMG) contraction intensities of 30, 40, 50, and 60% of an individually determined maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) (±10% range for each respective intensity) with real-time, EMG biofeedback. A cyclic contraction paradigm was performed at 30% of MVC with US and LE contraction strategies. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) quantified head motion to determine the viability of each paradigm for neuroimaging. US vs LE hold contractions induced no differences in head motion. Hold contractions elicited significantly less head motion relative to cyclic contractions. Contraction intensity increased head motion in a linear fashion with 30% MVC having the least head motion and 60% the highest. The LE hold contraction strategy, below 50% MVC, was found to be the most viable trunk motor control neuroimaging paradigm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7712160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher De Gruyter
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77121602020-12-16 Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging Saunders, Elizabeth Clark, Brian C. Clark, Leatha A. Grooms, Dustin R. Transl Neurosci Research Article The purpose of this study was to quantify head motion between isometric erector spinae (ES) contraction strategies, paradigms, and intensities in the development of a neuroimaging protocol for the study of neural activity associated with trunk motor control in individuals with low back pain. Ten healthy participants completed two contraction strategies; (1) a supine upper spine (US) press and (2) a supine lower extremity (LE) press. Each contraction strategy was performed at electromyographic (EMG) contraction intensities of 30, 40, 50, and 60% of an individually determined maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) (±10% range for each respective intensity) with real-time, EMG biofeedback. A cyclic contraction paradigm was performed at 30% of MVC with US and LE contraction strategies. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) quantified head motion to determine the viability of each paradigm for neuroimaging. US vs LE hold contractions induced no differences in head motion. Hold contractions elicited significantly less head motion relative to cyclic contractions. Contraction intensity increased head motion in a linear fashion with 30% MVC having the least head motion and 60% the highest. The LE hold contraction strategy, below 50% MVC, was found to be the most viable trunk motor control neuroimaging paradigm. De Gruyter 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7712160/ /pubmed/33335758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2020-0116 Text en © 2020 Elizabeth Saunders et al., published by De Gruyter http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Research Article
Saunders, Elizabeth
Clark, Brian C.
Clark, Leatha A.
Grooms, Dustin R.
Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title_full Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title_fullStr Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title_full_unstemmed Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title_short Development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
title_sort development of a trunk motor paradigm for use in neuroimaging
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7712160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33335758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2020-0116
work_keys_str_mv AT saunderselizabeth developmentofatrunkmotorparadigmforuseinneuroimaging
AT clarkbrianc developmentofatrunkmotorparadigmforuseinneuroimaging
AT clarkleathaa developmentofatrunkmotorparadigmforuseinneuroimaging
AT groomsdustinr developmentofatrunkmotorparadigmforuseinneuroimaging