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: Do Verbal and Tactile Cueing Selectively Alter Gluteus Maximus and Hamstring Recruitment During a Supine Bridging Exercise in Active Females? A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Hollman JH, Berling TA, Crum EO, Miller KM, Simmons BT, Youdas JW.
    Journal: J Sport Rehabil; 2018 Mar 01; 27(2):138-143. PubMed ID: 28121207.
    Abstract:
    CONTEXT: Hip extension with hamstring-dominant rather than gluteus maximus-dominant recruitment may increase anterior femoracetabular forces and contribute to conditions that cause hip pain. Cueing methods during hip extension exercises may facilitate greater gluteus maximus recruitment. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether specific verbal and tactile cues facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment while inhibiting hamstring recruitment during a bridging exercise. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 30 young adult women (age 24 [3] y; BMI 22.2 [2.4] kg/m2). INTERVENTION: Participants were tested over 2 sessions, 1 week apart, while performing 5 repetitions of a bridging exercise. At their second visit, participants in the experimental group received verbal and tactile cues intended to facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment and inhibit hamstring recruitment. Control group participants received no additional cues beyond original instructions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gluteus maximus and hamstring recruitment were measured with surface electromyography, normalized to maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs). RESULTS: Gluteus maximus recruitment was unchanged in the control group and increased from 16.8 to 33.0% MVIC in the cueing group (F = 33.369, P < .001). Hamstring recruitment was unchanged in the control group but also increased from 16.5 to 29.8% MVIC in the cueing group (F = 6.400, P = .02). The effect size of the change in gluteus maximus recruitment in the cueing group (Cohen's d = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.2) was not significantly greater than the effect size in hamstring recruitment (Cohen's d = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.1 to 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: Verbal and tactile cues hypothesized to facilitate gluteus maximus recruitment yielded comparable increases in both gluteus maximus and hamstring recruitment. If one intends to promote hip extension by facilitating gluteus maximus recruitment while inhibiting hamstring recruitment during bridging exercises, the cueing methods employed in this study may not produce desired effects.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]