Left–Right Differential Erector Spinae Muscles Activation in Prone and Quadruped Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left-right differential erector spinae (ES) muscle strengthening is required to correct ES muscle imbalances. The objective was to test the effect of 6 body positions on the differential activation of the ES muscles. In 14 able-bodied young women, using a surface electromyography system, the bilateral ES muscles activity at the third lumbar (ESL3) and the 10th (EST10) and 6th (EST6) thoracic vertebral levels was measured with the contralateral arm and leg lifted in the prone and quadruped conditions and with a single arm lifted in the quadruped position. Results showed that the activity of the ESL3 was symmetrical (P > .05) and significantly smaller than that of the thoracic ES muscles in all body positions (P < .01). The EST10 and EST6 were differentially activated in all tests (P < .001). Besides, the differential activation was higher in the contralateral-arm and -leg lift in the quadruped position than in the other positions. In conclusion, contralateral-arm and -leg lift and single-arm lift in the quadruped and prone positions are capable of differentially activating the ES muscles on one side more than the other side. Further studies are recommended to examine the effectiveness of these exercises on the correction of ES muscle imbalances in clinical populations.
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) | 0.002 | 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".