Changes in trunk muscle activation and lumbar-pelvic position associated with abdominal hollowing and reach during a simulated manual material handling task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of abdominal hollowing (AH) on trunk muscle activation and lumbar-pelvic motion during a controlled lift and replace task. Surface electromyograms were recorded from five abdominal and two back muscle sites. Sagittal lumbar-pelvic motion was recorded by video. Subjects lifted a 3.8 kg load in normal, maximum and extreme reaches, first while performing their preferred lifting style (PLS) and then maintaining an AH technique. The external oblique muscle site activities were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for the AH technique (ranging from 7-20% of maximal voluntary activation (MVIC)) than at any of the abdominal sites for the PLS (ranging from 2-10% MVIC). Differences were found among abdominal sites for the AH, but not for the PLS. The back muscle site activities (ranging from 9-30% MVIC) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than for any of the abdominal muscles for all conditions, except for the anterior external oblique for AH. The pelvic and lumbar angles changed significantly (p < 0.05) between normal and maximal reaches and between techniques. The AH technique altered abdominal muscle activation amplitudes, with minimal differences in trunk extensors compared to the PLS. The AH resulted in more posterior pelvic tilt.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".