Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluating the effect of co-contraction in optimization models

R E Hughes1, J C Bean, D B Chaffin

  • 1Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-2117, USA.

Journal of Biomechanics
|July 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

High-precision measurement of the <i>W</i> boson mass with the CDF II detector.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2022
Same author

<i>Fermi</i> LARGE AREA TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS OF BLAZAR 3C 279 OCCULTATIONS BY THE SUN.

The Astrophysical journal·2021
Same author

Mauritian Endemic Medicinal Plant Extracts Induce G2/M Phase Cell Cycle Arrest and Growth Inhibition of Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Vitro.

Acta naturae·2019
Same author

Readmission Rates for One Versus Two-Midnight Length of Stay for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Analysis of the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) Database.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume·2018
Same author

Probable pulmonary embolism with repeat administration of prothrombin complex concentrate in a factor Xa inhibitor patient.

Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics·2018
Same author

Search for the Exotic Meson X(5568) with the Collider Detector at Fermilab.

Physical review letters·2018

Muscle co-contraction significantly increases spinal compression force, with potential for substantial additional force generation. However, in specific scenarios, co-contraction might paradoxically reduce spinal compression.

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanics
  • Human Movement Science
  • Spinal Physiology

Background:

  • Understanding the forces acting on the spine is crucial for injury prevention and rehabilitation.
  • Muscle co-contraction, the simultaneous activation of opposing muscles, plays a complex role in joint stability and force generation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To quantify the effect of antagonist muscle co-contraction on spinal compression force.
  • To model co-contraction using optimization principles and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (K-K-T) multipliers.

Main Methods:

  • An optimization model was formulated to represent muscle forces.
  • Co-contraction was simulated by incrementally increasing lower bounds on muscle forces.
  • Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (K-K-T) multipliers were used to estimate the sensitivity of spinal compression to changes in muscle activation.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The marginal effect of co-contraction can add up to 5.52 N of spinal compression per Newton of additional muscle force.
  • The precise impact of co-contraction is task- and muscle-dependent.
  • In certain specific circumstances, co-contraction may lead to a slight decrease in predicted spinal compression.

Conclusions:

  • Muscle co-contraction is a significant contributor to spinal compression forces.
  • The K-K-T multiplier approach provides a valuable method for estimating the biomechanical consequences of co-contraction.
  • Further research is needed to fully elucidate the paradoxical effects of co-contraction in specific contexts.