Methods of Muscle Activation Onset Timing Recorded During Spinal Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine electromyographic threshold parameters that most reliably characterize the muscular response to spinal manipulation and compare 2 methods that detect muscle activity onset delay: the double-threshold method and cross-correlation method. METHODS: Surface and indwelling electromyography were recorded during lumbar side-lying manipulations in 17 asymptomatic participants. Muscle activity onset delays in relation to the thrusting force were compared across methods and muscles using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: The threshold combinations that resulted in the lowest Detection Failures were the "8 SD-0 milliseconds" threshold (Detection Failures = 8) and the "8 SD-10 milliseconds" threshold (Detection Failures = 9). The average muscle activity onset delay for the double-threshold method across all participants was 149 ± 152 milliseconds for the multifidus and 252 ± 204 milliseconds for the erector spinae. The average onset delay for the cross-correlation method was 26 ± 101 for the multifidus and 67 ± 116 for the erector spinae. There were no statistical interactions, and a main effect of method demonstrated that the delays were higher when using the double-threshold method compared with cross-correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The threshold parameters that best characterized activity onset delays were an 8-SD amplitude and a 10-millisecond duration threshold. The double-threshold method correlated well with visual supervision of muscle activity. The cross-correlation method provides several advantages in signal processing; however, supervision was required for some results, negating this advantage. These results help standardize methods when recording neuromuscular responses of spinal manipulation and improve comparisons within and across investigations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".