Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Direct in vivo measurements of spinal stability are not possible, leaving computational estimations (such as dynamic time series and structural analyses) as the feasible option. However, differences between different stability assessment approaches and metrics remain unclear. To explore this, we asked 32 participants to perform 35 cycles of repetitive lifts with and without load (4/2.6 kg for males/females). EMG signals and 3D kinematics were collected via 12 surface electrodes and 17 inertial sensors, and three dynamical stability measures were computed: short and long temporal and conventional maximum Lyapunov exponents (LyE) and maximum Floquet multipliers (FM). A dynamic subject-specific EMG-assisted musculoskeletal model computed four structural stability measures (critical muscle stiffness coefficient at which spine becomes unstable, average spine stiffness, minimum and geometric average of Hessian matrix eigenvalues). Across cycles, dynamical and structural stability outcomes varied noticeably. Temporal short-term LyE and all structural stability measures were more influenced by the cycle percentage (posture factor) than by phase (lifting, lowering) or load factor. The effect of all factors were non-significant for FM and long LyE, except for the posture on LyE-L with a small effect size. Pearson's correlations revealed a weak to moderate, or non-existent, correlation between structural and dynamical stability metrics, with small shared variances, underscoring their distinct and independent nature and theoretical foundations. Moreover, the low sensitivity of dynamic measures to posture and load factors, found in this study, calls for further examination. Considering the limitations and shortcomings of both dynamical and structural stability assessment approaches, there is a need for the development of improved musculoskeletal stability evaluation techniques.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111901 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!