@misc{SchaeferBittmann2021,
  author    = {Schaefer, Laura and Bittmann, Frank},
  title     = {Paired personal interaction reveals objective differences between pushing and holding isometric muscle action},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {714},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51911},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-519119},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In sports and movement sciences isometric muscle function is usually measured by pushing against a stable resistance. However, subjectively one can hold or push isometrically. Several investigations suggest a distinction of those forms. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these two forms of isometric muscle action can be distinguished by objective parameters in an interpersonal setting. 20 subjects were grouped in 10 same sex pairs, in which one partner should perform the pushing isometric muscle action (PIMA) and the other partner executed the holding isometric muscle action (HIMA). The partners had contact at the distal forearms via an interface, which included a strain gauge and an acceleration sensor. The mechanical oscillations of the triceps brachii (MMGtri) muscle, its tendon (MTGtri) and the abdominal muscle (MMGobl) were recorded by a piezoelectric-sensor-based measurement system. Each partner performed three 15s (80\% MVIC) and two fatiguing trials (90\% MVIC) during PIMA and HIMA, respectively. Parameters to compare PIMA and HIMA were the mean frequency, the normalized mean amplitude, the amplitude variation, the power in the frequency range of 8 to 15 Hz, a special power-frequency ratio and the number of task failures during HIMA or PIMA (partner who quit the task). A "HIMA failure" occurred in 85\% of trials (p < 0.001). No significant differences between PIMA and HIMA were found for the mean frequency and normalized amplitude. The MMGobl showed significantly higher values of amplitude variation (15s: p = 0.013; fatiguing: p = 0.007) and of power-frequency-ratio (15s: p = 0.040; fatiguing: p = 0.002) during HIMA and a higher power in the range of 8 to 15 Hz during PIMA (15s: p = 0.001; fatiguing: p = 0.011). MMGtri and MTGtri showed no significant differences. Based on the findings it is suggested that a holding and a pushing isometric muscle action can be distinguished objectively, whereby a more complex neural control is assumed for HIMA.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Hain2018,
  author    = {Hain, Gerrit},
  title     = {Onsets and dependencies of strenuous spine bending accelerations in drop landings},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42746},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427461},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XVI, 118},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {BACKGROUND: Physical activity involving high spinal load has been exposed to possess a crucial impact in the genesis of acute and chronic low back pain and disorder. Vigorous spinal loads are surmised in drop landings, for which strenuous bending loads were formerly evinced for the lower extremity structures. Thus far, clinical studies revealed that repetitive landing impacts can evoke benign structural adaptions or damage to the lumbar vertebrae. Though, causes for these observations are hitherto not conclusively evinced; since actual spinal load has to date not been experimentally documented. Moreover, it is yet undetermined how physiological activation of trunk musculature compensates for landing impact induced spinal loads, and to which extend trunk activity and spinal load are affected by landing demands and performer characteristics. AIMS of this study are 1. the localisation and quantification of spinal bending loads under various landing demands and 2. the identification of compensatory trunk muscular activity pattern, which potentially alleviate spinal load magnitudes. Three consecutive Hypotheses (H1 - H3) were hereto postulated: H1 posits that spinal bending loads in segregated motion planes can feasibly and reliably be evaluated from peak spine segmental angular accelerations. H2 furthermore assumes that vertical drop landings elicit highest spine bending load in sagittal flexion of the lumbar spine. Based on these verifications, a second study shall prove the successive hypothesis (H3) that diversified landing conditions, like performer's landing familiarity and gender, as an implementation of an instantaneous follow-up task, affect the emerging lumbar spinal bending load. Herein it is moreover surmised that lumbar spinal bending loads under distinct landing conditions are predominantly modulated by herewith disparately deployed conditioned pre-activations of trunk muscles. METHODS: To test the above arrayed hypothesis, two successive studies were carried out. In STUDY 1, 17 subjects were repetitively assessed performing various drop landings (heigth: 15, 30, 45, 60cm; unilateral, bilateral, blindfolded, catching a ball) in a test-retest-design. Herein individual peak angular accelerations [αMAX] were derived from three-dimensional motion data of four trunk-segments (upper thoracic, lower thoracic, lumbar, pelvis). αMAX was herein assessed in flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation of each spinal joint, formed by two adjacent segments. Reliability of αMAX within and between test-days was evaluated by CV\%, ICC 2.1, TRV\%, and Bland \& Altman Analysis (BIAS±LoA). Subsequently, peak flexion acceleration of the lumbo-pelvic joint [αFLEX[LS-PV]] was statistically compared to αMAX expressions of each other assessed spinal joint and motion plane (Mean ±SD, Independent Samples T-test). STUDY 2 deliberately assessed mere peak lumbo-pelvic flexion accelerations [αFLEX[LS-PV]] and electro-myographic trunk pre-activity prior to αFLEX[LS-PV] on 43 subjects performing varied landing tasks (height 45cm; with definite or indefinite predictability of a subsequent instant follow up jump). Subjects were contrasted with respect to their previous landing familiarity ( >1000 vs. <100 landings performed in the past 10 years) and gender. Differences of αFLEX[LS-PV] and muscular pre-activity between contrasted subject groups as between landing tasks were equally statistically tested by three-way mixed ANOVA with Post-hoc tests. Associations between αFLEX[LS-PV] and muscular pre-activity were factor-specifically assessed by Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient (rS). Complementarily, muscular pre-activity was subdivided by landing phases [DROP, IMPACT] and discretely assessed for phase specific associations to αFLEX[LS-PV]. Each muscular activity was moreover pairwise compared between DROP and IMPACT (Mean ±SD, Dependent Samples T-test). RESULTS: αMAX was presented with overall high variability within test-days (CV =36\%). Lowest intra-individual variability and highest reproducibility of αMAX between test-days was shown in flexion of the spine. αFLEX[LS-PV] showed largely consistent sig. higher magnitudes compared to αMAX presented in more cranial spinal joints and other motion planes. αFLEX[LS-PV] moreover gradually increased with escalations in landing heights. Landing unfamiliar subjects presented sig. higher αFLEX[LS-PV] in contrast to landing familiar ones (p=.016). M. Obliquus Int. with M. Transversus Abd. (66 ±32\%MVC) and M. Erector Spinae (47 ±15\%MVC) presented maredly highest activity in contrast to lowest activity of M. Rectus Abd. (10 ±4\%MVC). Landing unfamiliar subjects showed compared to landing familiar ones sig. higher activity of M. Obliquus Ext. (17 ±8\%MVC, 12 ±7\%MVC, p= .044). M. Obliquus Ext. and its co-contraction ratio with M. Erector Spinae moreover exhibited low but sig. positive correlations to αFLEX[LS-PV] (rs=.39, rs=.31). Each trunk muscule distributed larger shares of its activity to DROP, whereas peak activations of most muscles emerged in the proportionally shorter IMPACT phase. Commonly increased muscular pre-activation particularly at IMPACT was found in landings with a contrived follow up jump and in female subjects, whereby αFLEX[LS-PV] was hereof only marginally affected. DISCUSSION: Highest spine segmental angular accelerations in drop landings emerge in sagittal flexion of the lumbar spine. The compensatory stabilisation of the spine appears to be preponderantly provided by a dorso-ventral co-contraction of M. Obliquus Int., M. Transversus Abd. and M. Erector Spinae. Elevated pre-activity of M. Obliquuis Ext. supposably characterises poor landing experience, which might engender increased bending loads to the lumbar spine. A pervasive large variability of spinal angular accelerations measured across all landing types, suggests a multifarious utilisation of diverse mechanisms compensating for spinal impacts in landing performances. A standardised assessment and valid evaluation of landing evoked lumbar bending loads is hereof largley confined. CONCLUSION: Drop landings elicit most strenuous lumbo-pelvic flexion accelerations, which can be appraised as representatives for high energetic bending loads to the spine. Such entail the highest risk to overload the spinal tissue, when landing demands exceed the individual's landing skill. Previous landing experience and training appears to effectively improve muscular spine stabilisation pattern, diminishing spinal bending loads.},
  language  = {en}
}