Effects of the support surface condition on muscle activity of abdominalis and erector spinae during bridging exercise
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Various exercise protocols have been designed to improve trunk stability in the fields of rehabilitation and sport.Bridging exercise on the floor, foam roll, or gymball is often prescribed for improving trunk stability.The aim of this study was to determine the muscle activity of the abdominalis and erector spinae during bridging and unilateral bridging exercises on a firm surface, on the sit-fit, and on a foam roll.Eighteen healthy young subjects with no medical v history of lower-extremity or lumbar spine disease were recruited for this study.Muscle activity was recorded using surface EMG electrods from the both sides of the rectus abdominalis, external obliques, internal obliques, and erector spinae muscles during bridging and unilateral bridging exercises.A one-way repeated analysis of variance was used to compare the EMG activity of each muscle according to the support surface condition.Differences in the EMG activities between the bridging and unilateral bridging exercises, and between the right side and left side were assessed using a paired t-test, and the level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.The study showed that the EMG activities of the both rectus abdominalis, both external obliques, and the right internal oblique were significantly higher when the bridging exercise was performed using the foam roll than when using the sit-fit.The EMG activities of the both external obliques, both internal obliques, and both erector spinae during bridging exercise using the foam roll were significantly higher than that using the firm surface.The EMG activities of the left rectus abdominis, both external obliques, and the right internal oblique were significantly higher during unilateral bridging exercise using the foam roll than when using the sit-fit.The EMG activities of the right external oblique, right internal oblique, and both erector spinae during unilateral bridging exercise using the foam roll were significantly higher than when using the firm surface.The EMG activity of the left erector spina was significantly higher when using the sit-fit than when using the firm surface during the unilateral bridging exercise.The EMG activities of all of the muscles were significantly higher during the unilateral bridging exercise than during the bridging exercise.There was vi no significant difference in the EMG activity of each muscle between the right side and the left side during the bridging exercise.In the unilateral bridging exercise, the EMG activity of the right rectus abdominis was significantly higher than that of the left rectus abdominis in all three support surface conditions.In addition, the EMG activity of the right erector spina was significantly higher than that of the left erector spina when performing the unilateral bridging exercise using the firm surface and the sit-fit.Based on these fidings, performing the unilateral bridging exercise using the sit-fit or the foam roll is a useful method for facilitating trunk-muscle strength and hence lumbar stability.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».