Abstract：
This 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.
Within-subjects, repeated measure design.
Surface 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.
One-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.
No 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.
Within-subjects, repeated measure design.
Surface 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.
One-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.
No 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.
摘要：
目的：本研究调查了言语指导（VI）策略对健康受试者躯干肌收缩的影响。检查了三种VI腹部牵伸动作（ADIM）和两种VI腹部支撑动作（ABM）策略对左侧内部（LIO）和外部倾斜（LEO）和双侧浅表Multifidi（sMf）激活的影响。
方法：在受试者内，重复测量设计。
方法：表面EMG（sEMG）测量LIO，LEO,28名受试者(平均年龄23.5±5.5岁)的sMf活性。测试包括五个仰卧钩卧和五个安静的站立条件。
结果：单向ANOVAs在仰卧或站立时对ADIM或ABM没有显着的主要作用（p>.05）。除了涉及LEO的两种情况外，VPAC条件下的肌肉激活幅度显示出站立与仰卧的平均值较高（p<.05）。Friedman显性策略测试显示了ADIM-VI和ABM-VI策略的显着主要作用。事后测试通常显示，与其他策略相比，主导策略明显更高。
结论：未观察到ADIM或ABM的单一首选VI提示。每个科目的主导策略决定了最合适的VI。站立是LIO和sMf激活的首选，而位置没有改变LEO激活。在所有ADIM和ABM策略期间，观察到所有肌肉配对之间的非显着相关性。这些发现可能表明，了解躯干稳定性复杂性的医疗保健提供者需要使用ADIM或ABM选项来教授和监控VPAC。
方法：在受试者内，重复测量设计。
方法：表面EMG（sEMG）测量LIO，LEO,28名受试者(平均年龄23.5±5.5岁)的sMf活性。测试包括五个仰卧钩卧和五个安静的站立条件。
结果：单向ANOVAs在仰卧或站立时对ADIM或ABM没有显着的主要作用（p>.05）。除了涉及LEO的两种情况外，VPAC条件下的肌肉激活幅度显示出站立与仰卧的平均值较高（p<.05）。Friedman显性策略测试显示了ADIM-VI和ABM-VI策略的显着主要作用。事后测试通常显示，与其他策略相比，主导策略明显更高。
结论：未观察到ADIM或ABM的单一首选VI提示。每个科目的主导策略决定了最合适的VI。站立是LIO和sMf激活的首选，而位置没有改变LEO激活。在所有ADIM和ABM策略期间，观察到所有肌肉配对之间的非显着相关性。这些发现可能表明，了解躯干稳定性复杂性的医疗保健提供者需要使用ADIM或ABM选项来教授和监控VPAC。
