Search Results

You are looking at 161 - 170 of 327 items for :

Clear All
Open access

Mohammad Reza Pourahmadi, Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani, Shapour Jaberzadeh, Javad Sarrafzadeh, Mohammad Ali Sanjari, Rasool Bagheri and Morteza Taghipour

were flexed to 85°. Participants were instructed to perform STS at a self-selected pace while their arms hanging at their sides. Then, they were asked to sit on the stool for 6 s. 5 Cervical spine, upper thoracic spine (T1–T6), midthoracic spine (T7–T12), and lumbar spine Pelvis Torso sagittal ROM

Restricted access

Kunal Bhanot, Navpreet Kaur, Lori Thein Brody, Jennifer Bridges, David C. Berry and Joshua J. Ode

differences could have led to differences in the EMG activity. Gluteus Medius The EMG activity of the GMED ranged from 26.3% (13.4%) to 54.6% (26.1%) MVIC (Table  6 ) during the 8 directions of the SEBT. The highest activity was observed in the medial direction because, during the task, the pelvis of the

Restricted access

Francisco J. Vera-Garcia, Diego López-Plaza, Casto Juan-Recio and David Barbado

19 : (1) lumbopelvic postural control tests, based on clinical concepts of spine stability/instability (eg, “the ability to control motion of the lumbar spine and pelvis relative to an arbitrarily defined neutral position”) 20 and measuring the ability to maintain a given lumbopelvic position in

Restricted access

Shiho Goto, Naoko Aminaka and Phillip A. Gribble

extension for GMAX, hip adduction for AL, and knee extension for VM 3 times for 5 seconds in each muscle with a 2-minute interval between trials. The GMED MVIC was measured with participants in the side-lying position on a treatment table with the testing limb on top, while the pelvis was stabilized with a

Restricted access

Scott W. Ducharme and Richard E.A. van Emmerik

variable in segment couplings involving the knee joint than healthy runners. Seay and colleagues ( 2011 ) observed systematic decreases in coordination variability in runners with low back pain. Coordination variability between the pelvis and trunk was lower in runners with current low back pain compared

Restricted access

John R. Harry, Leland A. Barker, Jeffrey D. Eggleston and Janet S. Dufek

position after landing. No more than 11 trials were needed per participant to successfully complete the required 8 trials. A 4-segment model was built from the raw marker trajectories in the Visual 3D software suite (C-Motion Inc, Germantown, MD). Specifically, the model included the pelvis, thigh, leg

Restricted access

Kym J. Williams, Dale W. Chapman, Elissa J. Phillips and Nick Ball

to define the foot (calcaneus, proximal phalanx of the big toe, and proximal phalanx of little toe), pelvis (left and right anterior superior iliac spine and posterior superior iliac spine), and trunk (clavicle, sternum, C7 vertebra, and T10 vertebra). 29 The athlete’s center-of-mass (COM) position

Restricted access

Nicola Relph and Katie Small

average was taken. This task is correlated to a forward running technique. 20 Lower-Limb Flexibility Two experienced athletic trainers took flexibility measurements on both legs, with consistent roles in each protocol. The pelvis was stabilized to avoid compensatory movements in hip measurements. The

Restricted access

Anna C. Severin, Brendan J. Burkett, Mark R. McKean, Aaron N. Wiegand and Mark G.L. Sayers

ethics approval. Instrumentation This study used six 100-Hz inertial sensors (Nanotrak; Catapult Sports, Docklands, Australia) to track trunk, pelvis, and lower limb kinematics. Inertial sensors are a validated tool for kinematic analyses ( Cuesta-Vargas, Galán-Mercant, & Williams, 2010 ; Steins, Dawes

Restricted access

Katie A. Conway and Jason R. Franz

-ramped impeding force protocol (Ramp) that increased at a rate of 1%BW/s until the subjects reached the end point criterion, an inexorable 0.35-m posterior displacement of the subject’s pelvis. BW = body weight. We recorded trajectories of 31 retroreflective markers (100 Hz) on the pelvis and legs using a 14