Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.32(1) > 1054527

TOOLS
Won, Kim, Kim, and Lee: The Effect of Visual Information Provision on the Changes of Electromyogram Activity in Trunk and Lower Leg Muscles during Dynamic Balance Control
Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2014;32(1):44-54.

Published online: 17 January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2014.32.1.44

The Effect of Visual Information Provision on the Changes of Electromyogram Activity in Trunk and Lower Leg Muscles during Dynamic Balance Control

Mihee Won1, Myeongchul Kim2, Songjun Kim1, Jongsam Lee1

1Research Center for Exercise Sciences, Daegu University, Gyeongsan, Korea

2Department of Physical Therapy, Eulji University, Daejeon, Korea

Correspondence: Jongsam Lee Research Center for Exercise Sciences, Daegu University, 201 Daegudae-ro, Gyeongsan 712-714, Korea Tel: +82-53-850-6083, Fax: +82-53-850-6089, E-mail: jlee@daegu.ac.kr This research was supported by the Daegu University Research Grant, 2012.

Received 3 December 2013       Revised 23 May 2014       Accepted 28 May 2014

Copyright © 2014 The Korean Society of Sports Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes of electromyogram activity of trunk and lower leg muscles during dynamic balance control in 20 healthy adult subjects when various experimental visual conditions were applied. Surface electromyography system was used for recording of any signals produced by muscles. Muscle activity was recorded from muscles, of which left and right sides of rectus abdominis, external obliques, longissimus thoracis, multifidus, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, gastrocnemius medialis, and tibialis anterior, and then normalized as percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction. All data obtained from experiment were analyzed using SPSS ver. 20.0, and two-way analysis of variance were used to determine statistical significance between two factors (3×2 factorial analysis, visual conditions vs. leg conditions). Statistical significance levels were set at α=0.05. There were significant different in biceps femoris and external obliques muscle's activities between right and left leg, showing more prominent reduction in left leg when blind vision condition was given. Significantly higher muscle activities were shown in both sides of multifidus (p＜0.05), vastus medialis (p＜0.001), tibialis anterior (p＜0.001) and gastrocnemius medialis (p＜0.001) with sighted vision and blanking vision compared to the condition of blind vision. These results confirmed that muscle activity is prominently stimulated by visual information provision, and this implies that visual input may be a major factor for maintaining of the body's balance control.

Keywords: Dynamic balance, Surface electromyogram, Trunk muscle, Lower leg muscle

REFERENCES

1. Stoffregen TA, Riccio GE. An ecological theory of orientation and the vestibular system. Psychol Rev. 1988; 95:3–14.
crossref
2. Horak FB, Nashner LM. Central programming of postural movements: adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J Neurophysiol. 1986; 55:1369–81.
crossref
3. Nashner LM, McCollum G. The organization of human postural movements: A formal basis and experimental syn-thesis. Behav Brain Sci. 1985; 8:135–50.
crossref
4. Bae SW, Kim JI. Change the balance function with aging using computerized dynamic posturography. Exerc Sci. 2003; 12:747–56.
5. Kim YC, Jang SJ, Park MY, Park SW. Prognostic factors of ambulation in stroke patients. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 1992; 16:443–51.
6. Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood- Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 73:1073–80.
7. Horak FB. Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing. 2006; 35(Suppl 2):ii7-ii11.
crossref
8. Skinner HB, Barrack RL, Cook SD. Age-related decline in proprioception. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984; 184:208–11.
crossref
9. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:477–85.
10. Elliott DB, Patla AE, Flanagan JG, et al. The Waterloo Vision and Mobility Study: postural control strategies in subjects with ARM. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1995; 15:553–9.
11. Chen EW, Fu AS, Chan KM, Tsang WW. Balance control in very old adults with and without visual impairment. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012; 112:1631–6.
crossref
12. Held R. Two modes of processing spatially distributed visual stimulation. Schmitt FO, editor. editor.The neurosciences: second study program. New York: Rockefeller University Press;1970. p. 317–23.
13. Lee HK, Scudds RJ. Comparison of balance in older people with and without visual impairment. Age Ageing. 2003; 32:643–9.
crossref
14. Bronstein AM. Postrography. Luxon L, Furman JM, Martini A, Stephens DG, editors. editors.Texbook of audiological medicine. clinical aspects of hearing and balance. London: CRC Press;2003. p. 747–58.
15. Nashner LM, Peters JF. Dynamic posturography in the diagnosis and management of dizziness and balance disorders. Neurol Clin. 1990; 8:331–49.
crossref
16. Chen EW, Fu AS, Tsang WW. Tai Chi training improves balance control in subjects with visual impairment. Proceeding of the Seventh Pan-Pacific Conference on Rehabilitation. 2010. Oct 23-24; Hong Kong. p. 48.
17. Kim SJ, Lee JS. The effect of multi-axis sling suspension exercise on trunk-muscle activation. Exerc Sci. 2010; 17 17:317–30.
18. De Luca CJ. Low back pain: a major problem with low priority. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1997; 34:vii–viii.
19. Kilburn KH, Thornton JC. Prediction equations for balance measured as sway speed by head tracking with eyes open and closed. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52:544–6.
crossref
20. Winter DA. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture. 1995; 3:193–214.
crossref
21. Buckley JG, Heasley KJ, Twigg P, Elliott DB. The effects of blurred vision on the mechanics of landing during stepping down by the elderly. Gait Posture. 2005; 21:65–71.
crossref
22. An SY, Kwon MJ, Kwon OY. Motor control: Theory and practical applications. 2nd ed.Seoul: Yaongmunsa;2006.
23. Horak FB, Henry SM, Shumway-Cook A. Postural pertur-bations: new insights for treatment of balance disorders. Phys Ther. 1997; 77:517–33.
crossref
24. Maki BE, McIlroy WE. The role of limb movements in maintaining upright stance: the “change-in-support” strategy. Phys Ther. 1997; 77:488–507.
crossref
25. Jacobson GP, Newman CW, Kartush JM. Handbook of balance function testing. St. Louis: Mosby;1993.
26. Day BL, Steiger MJ, Thompson PD, Marsden CD. Effect of vision and stance width on human body motion when standing: implications for afferent control of lateral sway. J Physiol. 1993; 469:479–99.
crossref
27. Seo SK, Kim SH, Kim TY. Evaluation of static balance in postural tasks and visual cue in normal subjects. J Korean Soc Phys Ther. 2009; 21:51–6.
28. Woo YK, Park JW, Choi JD, Hwang JH, Kim YH. Electromyographic activities of lower leg muscles during static balance control in normal adults. J Korean Acad Univ Trained Phys Therapists. 2004; 11:35–45.
29. Crews JE, Campbell VA. Health conditions, activity limitations, and participation restrictions among older people with visual impairments. J Vis Impair Blind. 2001; 95:453–67.
crossref
30. Lord SR, Menz HB. Visual contributions to postural stability in older adults. Gerontology. 2000; 46:306–10.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Location of attached surface electromyogram (EMG) electrodes. (A) Rectus abdominis, External obliques. (B) Longissimus thoracis, Multifidus. (C) Vastus medialis. (D) Biceps femoris. (E) Tibialis anterior. (F) Gastrocnemius medialis.
kjsm-32-44f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Measurement of dynamic balance using SpaceBalance three-dimensional posturography. Picture is shown the experimental condition with sighted vision used.
kjsm-32-44f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Measurement of maximum voluntary isometric contraction.
kjsm-32-44f3.tif
Table 1.
Muscle names and location of surface electromyogram (EMG) electrodes attachment
Name of muscle Attachment location of electrodes
Rectus abominis 3 cm lateral from umbilicus
External obliques abdominis Halfway between the anterior superior iliac supine, and inferior border of the rib cage at a slightly oblique angle running parallel with the underlying muscle fibers
Longissimus thoracis 2 cm lateral from the midline running though the T9 spinal process parallel to the spine over muscle mass longissimus thoracis
Multifidus 2 cm lateral from the midline through the L5 spinal process
Vastus medialis obliques The distance (mm) from the superior medial side of the patella along a line medally oriented at an angle of 50° with respect to the superior iliac spine
Biceps femoris The 35.3 (±6.8) percentage distance from the ischial tuberosity to the lateral side or the popliteus cavity, starting from the ischial tuberosity
Gastrocnemius medialis The 50.3 (±5.7) percentage distance from the medial side of the popliteus cavity to the medial side of the Achilles tendon insertion, starting from the Achilles tendon
Tibialis anterior The 15.5 (±4.2) percentage distance from the tuberosity of tibia to the inter-malleoli line, starting from the of tibia
Table 2.
Rectus abdominis and external obliques muscle activation between different vision and leg conditions measured by electromyogram (%MVIC)
Vision condition Main effect of leg condition V-C L-C V-C vs. L-C
Sighted vision Blind vision Blanking vision
Rectus Abdominis 0.983 0.113 0.999
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.067±0.028 0.066±0.030 0.066±0.026 0.066±0.028
　 　 Left 0.057±0.030 0.057±0.030 0.056±0.028 0.057±0.029
　 Main effect of vision condition 0.062±0.029 0.061±0.030 0.061±0.027
External Obliques 0.835 0.689 0.910
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.101±0.049 0.098±0.048 0.098±0.049 0.099±0.048
　 　 Left 0.100±0.053 0.087±0.045∗ 0.097±0.054 0.095±0.050
　 Main effect of vision conditions 0.100±0.050 0.093±0.046 0.097±0.051

All values were expressed by mean±standard deviation.%MVIC: percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, V-C: vision condition, L-C: leg condition.

∗ Significantly different (p＜0.05) from right when experimental vision condition was the same.

Table 3.
Longissimus thorasis and multifidus muscle activation between different vision and leg conditions measured by electromyogram
Vision condition Main effect of leg condition V-C L-C V V-C vs. L-C
Sighted vision Blind vision B Blanking vision
Longissimus thorasis 0.577 0.431 0.999
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.094±0.035 0.086±0.032 0.094±0.037 0.091±0.034
　 　 Left 0.088±0.032 0.081±0.035 0.089±0.029 0.086±0.032
　 Main effect of vision condition 0.091±0.033 0.083±0.033 0.091±0.033
Multifidus 0.042 0.553 0.968
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.129±0.035∗ 0.101±0.037 0.123±0.035∗ 0.112±0.037
　 　 Left 0.131±0.048∗ 0.108±0.035 0.129±0.051∗ 0.123±0.045
　 Main effect of vision conditions 0.130±0.042∗ 0.105±0.036 0.126±0.043∗

All values were expressed by mean±standard deviation.%MVIC: percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, V-C: vision condition, L-C: leg condition.

∗Significantly different from blind vision (p＜0.05).

Table 4.
Vastus medialis and biceps femoris muscle activation between different vision and leg conditions measured by electromyogram (%MVIC)
Vision condition Main effect of leg condition V-C L-C V-C vs. L-C
Sighted vision Blind vision Blanking vision
Vastus medialis 0.001 0.528 0.950
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.111±0.068∗∗∗ ∗ 0.063±0.035 0.105±0.057∗∗∗ ∗ 0.093±0.058
　 　 Left 0.103±0.065∗∗∗ ∗ 0.051±0.027 0.103±0.072∗∗∗ ∗ 0.085±0.062
　 Main effect of vision condition 0.107±0.065∗∗ 0.057±0.031 0.104±0.064∗∗
Biceps femoris 0.903 0.734 0.259
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.067±0.038 0.081±0.045 0.073±0.045 0.074±0.042
　 　 Left 0.078±0.045 0.059±0.028# 0.075±0.037 0.071±0.038
　 Main effect of vision conditions 0.072±0.041 0.070±0.039 0.074±0.040

All values were expressed by mean±standard deviation.%MVIC: percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, V-C: vision condition, L-C: leg condition. Significantly different from blind vision

∗∗ p＜0.01;

∗∗∗ p＜0.001);

# Significantly different from right when experimental vision condition was the same.

Table 5.
Gastrocnemius medialis and tibialis anterior muscle activation between different vision and leg conditions measured by electromyogram (EMG) (%MVIC)
Vision condition Main effect of leg condition V-C L-C V-C vs. L-C
Sighted vision Blind vision Blanking vision
Gastrocnemius medialis 0.000 0.712 0.843
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.177±0.083∗∗∗ 0.078±0.036 0.147±0.086∗∗ 0.134±0.082
　 　 Left 0.182±0.131∗∗∗ 0.073±0.037 0.169±0.137∗∗∗ 0.141±0.119
　 Main effect of vision condition 0.180±0.107∗∗∗ 0.075±0.036 0.158±0.113∗∗∗
Tibialis anterior 0.000 0.911 0.851
　 Leg condition
　 　 Right 0.167±0.106∗∗∗ 0.048±0.047 0.149±0.074∗∗ 0.121±0.094
　 　 Left 0.169±0.102∗∗∗ 0.056±0.058 0.133±0.103∗∗ 0.119±0.099
　 Main effect of vision conditions 0.168±0.102∗∗∗ 0.052±0.052 0.141±0.089∗∗

All values were expressed by mean±standard deviation.%MVIC: percentage of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, V-C: vision condition, L-C: leg condition. Significantly different from blind vision

∗∗ p＜0.01;

∗∗∗ p＜0.001).

TOOLS
Similar articles