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: Investigating cervical muscle response and head kinematics during right, left, frontal and rear-seated perturbations.
    Author: Sacher N, Frayne RJ, Dickey JP.
    Journal: Traffic Inj Prev; 2012 Sep; 13(5):529-36. PubMed ID: 22931183.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Whiplash research has largely focused on rear collisions because they account for the majority of whiplash injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 perturbation directions (anterior, posterior, right, and left) on muscle activity and head kinematics to provide insight into the whiplash mechanism of injury. METHODS: The effects of 4 perturbation directions induced by a parallel robotic platform, with peak acceleration of 8.50 m/s2, were analyzed on 10 subjects. Surface electromyography (EMG) measures were collected from the sternocleidomastoid (SCM), trapezius, and splenius capitus muscles. Kinematics of the head, thorax, and head relative to thorax were also measured. RESULTS: We observed stereotypic responses for kinematics and SCM EMG for the various perturbation directions; the trapezius and splenius capitus muscles showed amplitudes that were less than 5 percent maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Rear perturbations elicited the smallest onset latencies for the SCM (30 ms) and kinematic variables and greatest linear head center of mass (COM) accelerations. Frontal perturbations resulted in an average SCM onset latency of 143 ms and demonstrated the greatest magnitude of head translations and rotations relative to the thorax. Left and right perturbations demonstrated similar kinematics and SCM onset latencies (55 and 65 ms, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to frontal, left, and right directions, rear perturbations showed smaller SCM onset latencies, greater SCM amplitudes, and larger head accelerations, relating to a greater potential for injury. We suggest that the greater contact area and stiffness of the seatback, in the posterior direction, compared to restrictions in other directions, led to increased peak head accelerations and shorter SCM onset latencies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]