Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 2, 2026

Multi-Modal Signals for Analyzing Pain Responses to Thermal and Electrical Stimuli
Published on: April 5, 2019
Sørensen test performance is driven by different physiological and psychological variables in participants with and
Megan E Applegate1, Christopher R France2, David W Russ3
1John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, USA.
Abstract:
Time to task failure (TTF) on the Sørensen test predicts low back pain (LBP), but mechanisms driving TTF may vary in those with and without recurrent LBP. To determine the physiological and psychological predictors of TTF, 48 sex, age, and BMI matched participants (24 Healthy, 24 LBP) completed psychological surveys, maximal strength assessments, and the Sørensen test. A two-way ANOVA revealed no significant effects of group (p = 0.75) or sex (p = 0.21) on TTF. In the full sample, linear regression analyses revealed that normalized Median Power Frequency (MPF) slope of the Erector Spinae (β = 0.350, p < 0.01), the Biceps Femoris (β = 0.375, p < 0.01), and self-efficacy (β = 0.437, p < 0.01) predicted TTF. In the Healthy group, normalized MPF slope of the Erector Spinae (β = 0.470, p < 0.01), the Biceps Femoris (β = 0.437, p < 0.01), and self-efficacy (β = 0.330, p = 0.02) predicted TTF. In the LBP group, trunk mass (β = -0.369, p = 0.04) and self-efficacy (β = 0.450, p = 0.02) predicted TTF. In sum, self-efficacy consistently predicts performance, while trunk mass appears to negatively influence TTF only for those with recurrent LBP.
Related Concept Videos
Defining Psychology
Psychology as a Science
The scientific method in psychology involves six critical steps: making observations, formulating hypotheses, conducting tests, analyzing...
Freudian Psychology
Gestalt Psychology
Humanistic Psychology
This approach...
Variability: Analysis
The range is a simple measure of variability, indicating the difference between the highest and...

