Cited by 140Muscle activation and electromyography studiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

The comparison of trunk muscles EMG activation between subjects with and without chronic low back pain during flexion–extension and lateral bending tasks

Open access
Larivière, Christian, Gagnon, Denis, Loisel, Patrick·2000·Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the trunk muscles between normal subjects and chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients during standardized trunk movements. Thirty-three male subjects (18 normals, 15 suffering from non specific CLBP) aged between 35 and 45 yr participated. A biomechanical analysis involving the recording of EMG signals from 12 trunk muscles, the kinematics of trunk segments and the computation of L5/S1 moments was performed. The subjects performed flexion-extension and lateral bending (left and right) tasks (three complete cycles) with and without a 12 kg load. Between group comparisons were performed on the full cycle average pattern of all biomechanical variables for each task. The reliability of EMG variables was evaluated for 10 subjects (5 normals and 5 CLBP) who performed the tasks on three different days. The reliability of EMG amplitude values was generally excellent for agonist muscles but poor to moderate for antagonists. The EMG amplitude analysis revealed significant differences between groups for some muscles (left lumbar and thoracic erector spinae). The abnormal (asymmetric) EMG patterns detected among CLBP patients were not explained by postural asymmetries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1050-6411(99)00027-9

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larivière, C., Gagnon, D., & Loisel, P.
Affiliations
Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Corresponding author
Gagnon, Denis
Venue
Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-04
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
79-91
ISSN
1050-6411 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156202290
Cited by
140
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhareSST (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
chronic low back pain, trunk muscles, muscle activation, flexion-extension, lateral bending, erector spinae, lumbar spine, trunk kinematics, trunk loading
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Chronic Disease, Electromyography, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Muscle Contraction, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain, Muscle, Skeletal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review