Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Different Upright Sitting Postures on Spinal-Pelvic Curvature and Trunk Muscle Activation in a Pain-Free Population

O’Sullivan, Peter B., Dankaerts, Wim, Burnett, Angus F., Farrell, Garreth T., Jefford, Evonne, Naylor, Clare S., O’Sullivan, Kieran J.·2006·Spine

Abstract

In Brief Study Design. A normative within-subjects single-group study. Objective. To compare spinal-pelvic curvature and trunk muscle activation in 2 upright sitting postures (“thoracic” and “lumbo-pelvic”) and slump sitting in a pain-free population. Summary of Background Data. Clinical observations suggest that both upright and slump sitting postures can exacerbate low back pain. Little research has investigated the effects of different upright sitting postures on trunk muscle activation. Methods. Spinal-pelvic curvature and surface electromyography of 6 trunk muscles were measured bilaterally in 2 upright (thoracic and lumbo-pelvic) sitting postures and slump sitting in 22 subjects. Results. Thoracic, compared to lumbo-pelvic, upright sitting showed significantly greater thoracic extension (P < 0.001), with significantly less lumbar extension (P < 0.001) and anterior pelvic tilt (P = 0.03). Furthermore, there was significantly less superficial lumbar multifidus (P < 0.001) and internal oblique (P = 0.03) activity, with significantly higher thoracic erector spinae (P < 0.001) and external oblique (P = 0.04) activity in thoracic upright sitting. There was no significant difference in superficial lumbar multifidus activity between thoracic upright and slump sitting. Conclusions. Different upright sitting postures resulted in altered trunk muscle activation. Thoracic when compared to lumbo-pelvic upright sitting involved less coactivation of the local spinal muscles, with greater coactivation of the global muscles. These results highlight the importance of postural training specificity when the aim is to activate the lumbo-pelvic stabilizing muscles in subjects with back pain. Spinal-pelvic curvature and trunk muscle activation were measured in 2 upright sitting postures and slump sitting. Thoracic upright, compared to lumbo-pelvic upright, sitting involved less activation of the lumbo-pelvic stabilizing muscles, with greater activation of the global stabilizers. Different upright sitting postures resulted in altered trunk muscle activity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.brs.0000234735.98075.50

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
O’Sullivan, P. B., Dankaerts, W., Burnett, A. F., Farrell, G. T., Jefford, E., Naylor, C. S., & O’Sullivan, K. J.
Venue
Spine
Published
2006-09
Volume
31
Issue
19
Pages
E707-E712
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087392464
Cited by
295
References
27
FWCI
11.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Different Upright Sitting Postures on Spinal-Pelvic Curvature and Trunk Muscle Activation in a Pain-Free Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000234735.98075.50
The paper
O’Sullivan, P. B., Dankaerts, W., Burnett, A. F., Farrell, G. T., Jefford, E., Naylor, C. S., & O’Sullivan, K. J. (2006). Effect of Different Upright Sitting Postures on Spinal-Pelvic Curvature and Trunk Muscle Activation in a Pain-Free Population. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000234735.98075.50

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.