Kinematic and EMG evaluation of the head and neck complex during low velocity whiplash-like perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to examine the kinematic and EMG response of the head and neck complex to specifically controlled, low velocity whiplash-like perturbations. While evaluation of these human responses to whiplash is not new, the manner in which these perturbations were controlled was novel. Specific crash pulse parameters and vertical accelerations were programmed with the use of a parallel robotic system to simulate true-to-life automobile collisions in evaluating the human response to a simulated whiplash mechanism. The purpose of the first study was to investigate accelerations of the head in both the vertical and horizontal directions when live human subjects were exposed to a simulated whiplash mechanism. This study demonstrated that the magnitude of the horizontal head accelerations were significantly larger than the vertical accelerations, and that in all trials the head accelerations of the subjects were greater than the robotic platform. Due to the distinct presence of vertical head accelerations, they were measured in all future studies. The literature to date has not evaluated the human response to a simulated whiplash mechanism with varying levels of jerk, or rate of change of acceleration. The ability of the robotic platform to control specific features of the crash pulse not before investigated led to the design of the second study. Results demonstrated that the jerk magnitude significantly affected head acceleration in the vertical direction, suggesting a link between the resulting kinematics of the head and neck and the specific crash pulse properties. The third study of this thesis compared the head accelerations and displacements, as well as muscle activation and latency, between horizontal acceleration whiplash-like perturbations with combined horizontal/vertical accelerations. The results suggested that the subject kinematic features will vary depending on the specific properties of the perturbation pulse and that higher acceleration levels demonstrated different head and neck kinematics as well as EMG output for the Sternocleidomastoid muscle when compared to lower acceleration levels. These varying features may help to explain the differing outcomes and severity experienced by individuals suffering Whiplash Associated Disorders from seemingly similar collisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".