Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction Research Articles

Effect of verbal instructions on trunk muscle activity during volitional preemptive abdominal contraction

ObjectiveThis study investigated the effect of Verbal Instruction (VI) strategies on trunk muscle contraction among healthy subjects. The effect of three VI Abdominal Drawing-In Maneuver (ADIM) and two VI Abdominal Bracing Maneuver (ABM) strategies on left Internal (LIO) and External Oblique (LEO) and bilateral superficial Multifidi (sMf) activation was examined. DesignWithin-subjects, repeated measure design. MethodsSurface EMG (sEMG) measured LIO, LEO, and sMf activity in 28 subjects (mean age 23.5 ± 5.5 years). Testing included five supine hook-lying and five quiet standing conditions. ResultsOne-way ANOVAs demonstrated no significant main effect for ADIM or ABM in supine or standing (p > .05). Muscle activation amplitudes during VPAC conditions demonstrated higher mean values for standing versus supine (p < .05) except for two conditions involving LEO. Friedman Tests for dominant strategy demonstrated a significant main effect for ADIM-VI and ABM-VI strategies. Post-hoc testing generally showed the dominant strategy to be significantly higher versus others. ConclusionNo single preferred VI cue for ADIM or ABM was observed. Each subject's dominant strategy dictated the most suitable VI. Standing was preferred for LIO and sMf activation, whereas position did not change LEO activation. Non-significant correlations between all muscle pairings during all ADIM and ABM strategies were observed. These findings may suggest the need for healthcare providers who understand the intricacies of trunk stability to teach and monitor VPAC with either ADIM or ABM options.

The Effect of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Biomechanical Measures During A Front Versus Back Loaded Barbell Squat.

Weightlifting is growing in popularity among recreational and competitive athletes. The barbell back squat (BackS) is commonly included in these training programs, while the barbell front squat (FrontS) is commonly performed as a component of other lifts such as the power clean or clean and jerk, it is less commonly practiced in isolation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of VPAC performance on trunk muscle and LE biomechanical responses during loaded BackS versus FrontS in healthy subjects. Controlled Laboratory Study. Healthy male subjects with the ability to perform a sub-maximal loaded barbell squat lift were recruited. Subjects completed informed consent, demographic/medical history questionnaires and an instructional video. Subjects practiced VPAC and received feedback. Surface electromyography (sEMG) electrodes and kinematic markers were applied. Muscles included were the internal oblique (IO), external oblique (EO), rectus abdominis, iliocostalis lumborum (ICL), superficial multifidi, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus. Maximal voluntary isometric contractions established reference sEMG values. A squat one-rep-max (1RM) was predicted by researchers using a three to five repetition maximum (3RM, 5RM) load protocol. Subjects performed BackS trials at 75% 1RM while FrontS trials were performed at 75% BackS weight, both with and without VPAC. Subjects performed three repetitions of each condition with feet positioned on two adjacent force plates. Significant interactions and main effects were tested using a 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(squat variation) and 2(VPAC strategy) x 2(direction) within-subject repeated measures ANOVAs. Tukey's Post-Hoc tests identified the location of significant differences. Trunk muscle activity was significantly higher during FrontS versus BackS regardless of VPAC condition. (IO: p=0.018, EO: p<0.001, ICL: p<0.001) VPAC increased performance time for both squat variations (p=.0011), which may be associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine and knees. VPAC led to improved ability to maintain a neutral lumbar spine during both squat variations. This finding is associated with decreased detrimental force potential on the lumbar spine. Findings could help guide practitioners and coaches to choose squat variations and incorporate VPAC strategies during their treatments and/or training programs. Level 3©The Author(s).

Effects of Volitional Spine Stabilization on Trunk Control During Asymmetric Lifting Task in Patients With Recurrent Low Back Pain.

Study Design:Prospective, concurrent-cohort study.Objectives:To determine the effects of volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) on trunk control during an asymmetric lift in patients with recurrent low back pain (rLBP) and compare with matched controls.Methods:Thirty-two rLBP patients and 37 healthy controls performed asymmetric lifting with and without VPAC. Trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanical along with neuromuscular activity parameters were obtained using 3-dimensional motion capture and electromyography system. Hypotheses were tested using analysis of variance.Results:The VPAC resulted in significantly reduced muscle activity across all trunk extensor muscles in both groups (M ± SD, 6.4% ± 8.2% of maximum contraction; P ≤ .005), and reduced trunk side flexion (1.4° ± 5.1° smaller; P ≤ .005) and hip abduction (8.1° ± 21.1° smaller; P ≤ .003). rLBP patients exhibited reduced muscle activity in external oblique (12.3% ± 5.5% of maximum contraction; P ≤ .012), as well as decreased hip flexion (4.7°, P ≤ .008) and hip abduction (5.2°, P ≤ .001) at the final position of lifting in comparison with healthy controls.Conclusions:The results of this study defend the recommendation that the use of a VPAC increase spine stability during an asymmetrical loading task. Our results provide an indication that a VPAC strategy that is achieved during an asymmetric lifting decreases exposure for lumbar spine injury and instability. Spine care providers and ergonomists can use this information when designing neuromuscular control training programs, both for healthy individuals aimed at prevention of injury, as well as those with a history of rLBP, aimed at full functional recovery and protection from future injury.

Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction and Upper Extremity Muscle Latencies During D1 Flexion and Scaption Shoulder Exercises.

The abdominal-bracing maneuver, a volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) strategy, is commonly used during resisted shoulder exercises. How VPAC affects shoulder-muscle function during resisted shoulder exercise is unknown. To identify the effects of VPAC on selected parascapular and glenohumeral muscles during specific shoulder exercises with or without resistance. Cross-sectional study. Clinical biomechanics research laboratory. Twenty-two asymptomatic volunteers between 18 and 40 years of age. Participants performed arm elevation in scaption and D1 shoulder-flexion (D1F) patterns with and without resistance and VPAC. Electromyography was used to test the muscle-contraction amplitudes and onset timing of the anterior deltoid, posterior deltoid, upper trapezius, lower trapezius, and serratus anterior. Muscle-response amplitudes were quantified using root mean square electromyography. Shoulder-muscle relative-onset timing was quantified in reference to kinematic elbow-movement initiation. The VPAC increased serratus anterior amplitude during D1F ( P < .001) and scaption ( P < .001) and upper trapezius amplitude ( P < .001) in scaption. All muscle amplitudes increased with resistance. The VPAC decreased muscle-onset latencies for the anterior deltoid ( P < .001), posterior deltoid ( P = .008), upper trapezius ( P = .001), lower trapezius ( P = .006), and serratus anterior ( P = .001) during D1F. In addition, the VPAC decreased muscle-onset latencies for the anterior deltoid ( P < .001), posterior deltoid ( P = .007), upper trapezius ( P < .001), lower trapezius ( P < .001), and serratus anterior ( P < .001) during scaption. The VPAC affected only the parascapular muscles that had the greatest scapular-stabilizing roles during the specific open chain movement we tested. It decreased latencies in all muscles. These neuromuscular changes may enhance the stability of the shoulder during D1F and scaption exercises.

Volitional Spine Stabilization During a Drop Vertical Jump From Different Landing Heights: Implications for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.

Volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) during dynamic activities may alter trunk motion, but the role of the core musculature in positioning the trunk during landing tasks is unclear. To determine whether volitional core-muscle activation incorporated during a drop vertical jump alters lower extremity kinematics and kinetics, as well as trunk and lower extremity muscle activity at different landing heights. Controlled laboratory study. Clinical biomechanics laboratory. Thirty-two young healthy adults, consisting of 17 men (age = 25.24 ± 2.88 years, height = 1.85 ± 0.06 m, mass = 89.68 ± 16.80 kg) and 15 women (age = 23.93 ± 1.33 years, height = 1.67 ± 0.08 m, mass = 89.68 ± 5.28 kg). Core-muscle activation using VPAC. We collected 3-dimensional ankle, knee, and hip motions, moments, and powers; ground reaction forces; and trunk and lower extremity muscle activity during 0.30- and 0.50-m drop vertical-jump landings. During landing from a 0.30-m height, VPAC performance increased external oblique and semitendinosis activity, knee flexion, and knee internal rotation and decreased knee-abduction moment and knee-energy absorption. During the 0.50-m landing, the VPAC increased external oblique and semitendinosis activity, knee flexion, and hip flexion and decreased ankle inversion and hip-energy absorption. The VPAC performance during landing may protect the anterior cruciate ligament during different landing phases from different heights, creating a protective advantage just before ground contact and after the impact phase. Incorporating VPAC during high injury-risk activities may enhance pelvic stability, improve lower extremity positioning and sensorimotor control, and reduce anterior cruciate ligament injury risk while protecting the lumbar spine.

Effects of Volitional Spine Stabilization and Lower-Extremity Fatigue on the Knee and Ankle During Landing Performance in a Population With Recurrent Low Back Pain

Recurrent lower back pain (rLBP) and neuromuscular fatigue are independently thought to increase the risk of lower extremity (LE) injury. Volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) is thought to improve lumbar spine and pelvis control in individuals with rLBP. The effects of VPAC on fatigued landing performance in individuals with rLBP are unknown. To determine the effects of VPAC and LE fatigue on landing performance in a rLBP population. Cross-sectional pretest-posttest cohort control design. A clinical biomechanics laboratory. 32 rLBP (age 21.2 ± 2.7 y) but without current symptoms and 33 healthy (age 20.9 ± 2.3 y) subjects. (i) Volitional preemptive abdominal contraction using abdominal bracing and (ii) fatigue using submaximal free-weight squat protocol with 15% body weight until task failure was achieved. Knee and ankle angles, moments, electromyographic measurements from semitendinosus and vastus medialis muscles, and ground reaction force (GRF) were collected during 0.30 m drop-jump landings. The VPAC resulted in significantly earlier muscle onsets across all muscles with and without fatigue in both groups (mean ± SD, 0.063 ± 0.016 s earlier; P ≤ .001). Fatigue significantly delayed semitendinosus muscle onsets (0.033 ± 0.024 s later; P ≤ .001), decreased GRF (P ≤ .001), and altered landing kinematics in a variety of ways. The rLBP group exhibited delayed semitendinosus and vastus medialis muscle onsets (0.031 ± 0.028 s later; P ≤ .001) and 1.8° less knee flexion at initial contact (P ≤ .008). The VPAC decreases some of the detrimental effects of fatigue on landing biomechanics and thus may reduce LE injury risk in a rLBP population.

The Effect of Current Low Back Pain on Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Activation During a Loaded Forward Reach Activity

BackgroundA volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) supports trunk stability during functional activity. Pain-free individuals can sustain VPAC during function, but such has not been reported for individuals with current low back pain (cLBP). ObjectiveTo examine whether cLBP affects VPAC performance during a loaded forward reach (LFR) task. DesignObservational crossover study. SettingLaboratory. ParticipantsA total of 18 controls and 17 subjects with cLBP with pain ratings of 1/10 to 4/10 on a visual analog scale. InterventionsTransverse abdominis (TrA) thickness measurements were recorded by blinded researchers from M-mode ultrasound imaging during 4 conditions: (1) quiet standing without abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM); (2) quiet standing with ADIM; (3) LFR without ADIM; and (4) LFR with ADIM. A physical therapist with 29 years of experience collected historical and examination data. Main Outcome MeasuresTrA muscle thickness (mm). ResultsA 2 (group) × 2 (contraction) × 2 (reach) analysis of variance demonstrated a significant group × contraction interaction (F [1, 31] = 4.499, P = .04) where ADIM produced greater TrA thickness increases in PLBP subjects (2.18 mm) versus controls (1.36 mm). We observed a significant main effect for reach (F [1, 31] = 14.989, P < .001), where LFR activity produced a greater TrA thickness (6.15 ± 2.48 mm) versus quiet standing (5.30 ± 2.12 mm). ConclusionsSubjects with cLBP demonstrated a greater increase in TrA activation during ADIM versus controls.

Effects of volitional spine stabilization on lifting task in recurrent low back pain population.

To examine the influence of volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) and recurrent low back pain (rLBP) on trunk mechanics and neuromuscular control during a symmetric lifting task. A 2×2 crossover mixed design was used to examine the effects of VPAC and group. Thirty-seven healthy individuals and 32 rLBP individuals performed symmetric box lifting trials with and without VPAC to a 1-m height table3D trunk, pelvis, and hip joint angle and electromyographic magnitude variables were obtained. Selected variables were analyzed using ANOVA. The VPAC induced differences in joint kinematics and muscle activity in rLBP and healthy subjects during symmetric lifting. A significant two-way interaction effect was observed for the semitendinosus activity. The VPAC increased external oblique muscle activity, reduced erector spinae and multifidus muscles activity, and induced greater trunk flexion angle, greater trunk side flexion angle, and greater hip flexion angle, and decreased pelvis obliquity angle in both groups. In addition, the rLBP subjects presented with a reduced external oblique and gluteus maximus muscle activity, greater erector spinae and multifidus muscles activity, and greater pelvis posterior tilt angle. Our results provide evidence that a VPAC strategy performed during symmetric lifting may potentially reduce exposure to biomechanical factors that can contribute to lumbar spine injury. The hamstring muscles may play an important role in achieving pelvic balance during the lifting maneuver. Incorporating the VPAC during dynamic stressful activities appears to help improve sensorimotor control and facilitate positioning of the lower extremities and the pelvis, while protecting the lumbar spine.

The Effect of Distractive Function on Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction During a Loaded Forward Reach in Normal Subjects

BackgroundVolitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) is used to protect the spine and prevent injury. No published studies to data have examined the effect of distraction on VPAC use during function. ObjectiveTo examine the effect of an auditory distraction (“Stroop task”) on healthy subjects' ability to sustain VPAC by use of the abdominal drawing-in maneuver during loaded forward reach. DesignWithin-subjects, repeated-measure cohort design. SettingClinical laboratory setting. ParticipantsConvenience sample of 42 healthy individuals (ages 20-57 years). MethodsTransversus abdominis (TrA) thickness was measured with M-mode ultrasound imaging. Each subject performed Stroop versus no Stroop during 4 conditions: (1) without VPAC, quiet standing; (2) with VPAC, quiet standing; (3) without VPAC, forward reach; and (4) with VPAC, forward reach. An investigator blinded to the conditions measured the first 10 subjects to establish intratester reliability of probe/transducer placement and TrA measurement. Data ReductionTrA thickness (mm) change represented VPAC performance. A single investigator measured onscreen TrA thickness twice at each second from second-6 through -10 on a recorded ultrasound imaging sequence. ResultsA 2 (Stroop) × 4 (Activity) repeated-measures analysis of variance found no significant Stroop × Activity interaction [F(3, 93) = 0.345, P = .793] and no main effect for Stroop [F (1,31) = 1.324, P = .259] but found a significant main effect for activity [F (3,93) = 17.729, P < .001]. Tukey post-hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated significant differences between VPAC versus no-VPAC conditions, except between quiet standing/yes-VPAC and loaded forward reach/no-VPAC conditions (P = .051). The interclass correlation coefficient (3,2) for probe/transducer placement reliability was 0.87, 0.91, 0.92, and 0.93 for conditions 1-4, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (3,2) for TrA measurement reliability was 0.96, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99 for conditions 1-4, respectively. ConclusionA distracting executive function (Stroop task) did not produce a significant negative impact on normal individuals' ability to sustain a VPAC during quiet standing or loaded forward reach activities. Level of EvidenceII

The Effects of Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction on Postural Control Responses in Healthy Subjects

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of volitional preemptive abdominal contraction by using an abdominal bracing maneuver (ABM) on postural control responses. DesignA within-subjects, repeated-measure, experimental design. SettingLaboratory. ParticipantsSixty-five healthy subjects between 18 and 50 years of age. MethodsSubjects performed ABM alternating with No-ABM during 2 rounds of 2 Neurocom computed dynamic posturography tests: the Motor Control Test (MCT) and conditions 1 (eyes open), 2 (eyes closed), and 5 (eyes closed, sway-referenced support) of the Sensory Organization Test (SOT). Main Outcome Measurements(1) MCT Response Latency (milliseconds) and Response Scaling (magnitude of active postural correction) and (2) SOT Equilibrium Scores and 2-Dimensional Sway (°/second), and SOT Movement Strategy, which measure postural sway and movement strategies (ankle versus hip strategy), respectively. ResultsThe use of ABM (versus No-ABM) produced: (1) a small but statistically significant decrease in SOT Equilibrium Score for condition 2 (−1.0%; P = .004); (2) an increase in SOT 2-Dimensional Sway (°/second) during conditions 1 (16.9%; P = .0001) and 2 (15.0%; P = .0001); (3) a small decrease in SOT Movement Strategy scores during condition 1 (−0.5%; P = .001) and condition 2 (−1.0%; P = .017); and (4) a reduction of MCT Response Latency by 3 milliseconds (−2.1%; P = .005) and reduction of Response Scaling by 0.33°/second (−9.2%; P = .001). ConclusionIndividuals can incorporate the ABM without substantively altering postural control. Although selected SOT and MCT scores exhibited small decreases in postural response integrity, those outcomes did not reflect functionally meaningful changes. These findings can enhance clinicians' confidence in prescribing the ABM as a means to protectively stabilize the spine and potentially prevent injury in healthy subjects without concern for reducing postural control, especially during more complex postural perturbations that introduce sensory conflict.

Co-contractive Activation of the Superficial Multifidus During Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction

To investigate whether the superficial multifidus (MF) muscle at the lower lumbar spine displayed co-contraction during volitional preemptive abdominal contraction (VPAC) through the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) or the abdominal bracing maneuver (ABM) in 3 different postural positions. A within-subject cohort design. A clinical laboratory. A healthy convenience sample of 21 women and 13 men; mean age (SD), 25.5 ± 6.5 years. We collected surface electromyographic measurements for the superficial MF at the L5 vertebral level and abdominal wall muscles. Ultrasound imaging was used during screening and testing sessions for confirming transverse abdominis muscle activation while subjects maintained a relaxed state without volitional abdominal contraction (no-VPAC) and performed ADIM and ABM in 3 postural positions: supine, 4-point kneeling, and upright standing. The frequency of superficial MF co-contraction occurrences (percentage of the total number of conditions) was measured during ADIM and ABM in 3 different postural positions. A Cochran Q test for k-related samples (α= 0.05) was used for data analysis. Activation of the abdominal wall by using either VPAC strategy resulted in a significantly greater MF co-contraction occurrence when compared with no-VPAC in each position. The ABM produced a significantly higher MF co-contractive occurrence versus the ADIM in the supine position. Both VPAC strategies produced a co-contractive MF response, which appears to be important for lumbar segmental stabilization and control. Analysis of the results suggests that VPAC strategies are appropriate for coactivating the MF, which can enhance spinal protection and rehabilitation responses.