MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromyographic and Kinematic Exploration of Whiplash-Type Left Anterolateral Impacts

2004· article· en· W2042185602 on OpenAlexaff
Shrawan Kumar, Robert Ferrari, Yogesh Narayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTorsoCoronal planeWhiplashPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyKinematicsPhysical therapyAnatomyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Volunteer studies of the cervical muscular response and head-neck kinematics in response to frontal impacts are uncommon. Moreover, the effect of a frontal impact offset to the left on the resultant muscle responses is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the response of the cervical muscles to increasing low-velocity frontal impacts offset by 45 degrees to the left and to compare the quantitative effects of expected and unexpected impact. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers were subjected to frontal impacts, offset by 45 degrees to the subject's left, of 5.0, 8.7, 11.3, and 15.6 m/s2 of acceleration at two levels of expectation: expected and unexpected. Bilateral electromyograms (EMGs) of the sternocleidomastoids, trapezii, and splenii capitis were recorded. Triaxial accelerometers recorded the acceleration of the chair, torso at the shoulder level, and head of the participant. RESULTS: Subjects tended to exhibit lower percentages of their maximal voluntary contraction EMG when the impact was expected. When the impact was unexpected, and at an acceleration of 15.6 m/s2, the splenius capitis muscle contralateral to the impact (ie, right splenius in a left anterolateral impact) generated 95% of its maximal voluntary contraction EMG, whereas the left splenius (ipsilateral to the left anterolateral impact) generated only 43% of this variable. Under these same conditions, the trapezii responded symmetrically, generating approximately 80% of their maximal voluntary contraction EMG. At an acceleration of 15.6 m/s2, the sternocleidomastoids generated approximately 37% of their maximal voluntary contraction EMG in both the expected and the unexpected impact conditions. EMG (such as time to peak EMG) and kinematic variables were significantly affected by the levels of acceleration (P < 0.001) and expectation status (P < 0.05). The time to onset of the EMG for the splenii capitis and trapezii progressively decreased with increasing levels of acceleration. In response to left anterolateral impacts, muscle responses were greater with higher levels of acceleration and greatest for the splenius capitis muscle contralateral to the side of impact. The head acceleration response was greater in the unexpected than in the expected condition (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Because the muscular component of the head-neck complex plays a central role in the abatement of higher acceleration levels, this is likely a primary site of injury in the whiplash phenomenon in frontal collisions. More specifically, when a frontal impact is offset to the subject's left, it not only results in increased EMG generation in both trapezii, but the splenius capitis contralateral to the direction of impact also bears part of the force of the neck perturbation. Expecting or being aware of imminent impact may play a role in reducing muscle responses in low-velocity anterolateral impacts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207