These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Muscle activation following sudden ankle inversion during standing and walking.
    Author: Ty Hopkins J, McLoda T, McCaw S.
    Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol; 2007 Mar; 99(4):371-8. PubMed ID: 17165055.
    Abstract:
    Dynamic response characteristics of ankle musculature following sudden ankle inversion have traditionally been tested in a static, standing position. However, this model does not take into consideration muscle activity and loading characteristics associated with active gait. This study compared muscle reaction times and amplitudes from sudden ankle inversion during standing (standing group) and walking (walking group) using one of two similar devices for each of these conditions. Surface EMG was collected from the peroneus longus (PL), brevis (PB), and tibialis anterior (TA) of the dominant leg from 25 subjects (age 20 +/- 1 years, height 174.0 +/- 10.2 cm, mass 74.3 +/- 12.9 kg) for each condition (walking and standing). Time to total inversion ROM (28 degrees ) was greater in the walking group (114.9 +/- 15.0 ms) than the standing group (65.6 +/- 17.8 ms, P < 0.05), whereas reaction time was less in the peroneals in the walking group (PL 56.9 +/- 8.4 ms, PB 60.1 +/- 10.6 ms, TA 65.0 +/- 14.9 ms) compared to the standing group (PL 74.3 +/- 8.5 ms, PB 73.5 +/- 8.2 ms, TA 73.3 +/- 8.3, P < 0.05). Additionally, Peak normalized EMG (% MVIC) for the walking condition (PL 367 +/- 254, PB 405 +/- 359, TA 84 +/- 39) exceeded that of the standing condition (PL 310 +/- 239, PB 328 +/- 215, TA 76 +/- 39, P < 0.05), and average normalized EMG (% MVIC) was greater in the peroneals for the walking condition (PL 233 +/- 171, PB 280 +/- 255) than the standing condition (PL 164 +/- 131, PB 193 +/- 137, P < 0.05). The differences noted between the conditions provide evidence that a dynamic response to ankle injury mechanisms is much different in a walking model compared to a traditional standing model. A walking model may be a more functional approach for evaluating dynamic response characteristics of ankle musculature due to sudden ankle inversion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]