Skip to main content
Log in

Trunk Reaction Time and Kinematic Changes Following Slip Perturbations in Subjects with Recurrent Low Back Pain

  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 October 2020

A Correction to this article was published on 30 October 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Postural responses following slip perturbations are critical to fall prevention strategies. It is unclear how postural reactions with a handheld task can validly be transferred to treadmill-induced slip perturbations in subjects with recurrent low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to investigate trunk reaction times and trunk flexion angle as well as velocity following the slips between subjects with and without LBP. There were 29 subjects with LBP and 40 control subjects who participated in the study. Three levels of consecutive treadmill-induced slip perturbations were introduced at level 1 (duration: 0.10 s, velocity: 0.24 m/s, displacement: 1.20 cm), level 2 (0.12 s, 0.72 m/s, 4.32 cm), and level 3 (0.12 s, 1.37 m/s, 8.22 cm). The trunk reaction time, swing/step times, and trunk flexion angle as well as velocity at heel strike/toe-off were compared between the groups. There were significantly longer trunk reaction times (t = − 2.03, p = 0.04), swing times (t = − 2.63, p = 0.01), and step times (t = − 2.53, p = 0.01) in the LBP group at the level 1 slip perturbation. The groups demonstrated a significant interaction between the levels and trunk flexion angles (F = 4.72, p = 0.03), but there was no interaction between the levels and trunk flexion velocities (F = 0.07, p = 0.79). The LBP group demonstrated longer reaction times at the level 1 perturbation due to a possible pain recurrence. However, this compensatory tolerance was limited at the level 3 perturbation due to increased trunk flexion angle at heel strike and toe-off in the LBP group. Clinicians may consider a compensatory strategy to improve reaction time and minimize trunk flexion following slip perturbations in patients with LBP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 30 October 2018

    This erratum is to correct the force plate device presented in the Methods section, subsection ?Data Collection.? A pressure mat, rather than a force plate was used with the ActiveStep? treadmill to measure ground reaction forces. The third sentence of the second paragraph should read as: ?The pressure mat (GAITRite, Sparta, NJ) was installed, and a computer-controlled triggering mechanism would release the movable belt on the platform.? Additionally, the first sentence of the third paragraph in the same section should read as: ?The flexion angle was measured at heel strike of the first step only, and flexion angle at toe-off was measured at first step only (represented in degrees) by the IMU sensor and the pressure mat.?

  • 30 October 2018

    This erratum is to correct the force plate device presented in the Methods section, subsection ?Data Collection.? A pressure mat, rather than a force plate was used with the ActiveStep? treadmill to measure ground reaction forces. The third sentence of the second paragraph should read as: ?The pressure mat (GAITRite, Sparta, NJ) was installed, and a computer-controlled triggering mechanism would release the movable belt on the platform.? Additionally, the first sentence of the third paragraph in the same section should read as: ?The flexion angle was measured at heel strike of the first step only, and flexion angle at toe-off was measured at first step only (represented in degrees) by the IMU sensor and the pressure mat.?

  • 27 October 2020

    This erratum is to correct the results section on page 490.

Abbreviations

LBP:

Low back pain

BMI:

Body mass index

VAS:

Visual analog scale

ODI:

Oswestry Disability Index

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

r:

Pearson correlation coefficient

References

  1. Adkin, A. L., J. S. Frank, M. G. Carpenter, and G. W. Peysar. Postural control is scaled to level of postural threat. Gait Posture 12:87–93, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brumagne, S., L. Janssens, E. Janssens, and L. Goddyn. Altered postural control in anticipation of postural instability in persons with recurrent low back pain. Gait Posture 28:657–662, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brumagne, S., L. Janssens, S. Knapen, K. Claeys, and E. Suuden-Johanson. Persons with recurrent low back pain exhibit a rigid postural control strategy. Eur Spine J 17:1177–1184, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciccone, D. S., N. Just, and E. B. Bandilla. Non-organic symptom reporting in patients with chronic non-malignant pain. Pain 68:329–341, 1996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davies, B. L., R. M. Hoffman, and M. J. Kurz. Individuals with multiple sclerosis redistribute positive mechanical work from the ankle to the hip during walking. Gait Posture 49:329–333, 2016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Vet, H. C., M. W. Heymans, K. M. Dunn, et al. Episodes of low back pain: a proposal for uniform definitions to be used in research. Spine 27:2409–2416, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deyo, R. A., and J. N. Weinstein. Low back pain. N Engl J Med 344:363–370, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fjeldstad, C., A. S. Fjeldstad, L. S. Acree, K. J. Nickel, and A. W. Gardner. The influence of obesity on falls and quality of life. Dyn Med 7:4, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Haddas R, Sawyer SF, Sizer PS, Brooks T, Chyu MC, James CR. Effects of volitional spine stabilization and lower-extremity fatigue on the knee and ankle during landing performance in a population with recurrent low back pain. J Sport Rehabil 26(5):329–338, 2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall, C. D., and J. L. Jensen. The effect of cane use on the compensatory step following posterior perturbations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:678–687, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamaoui, A., M. C. Do, and S. Bouisset. Postural sway increase in low back pain subjects is not related to reduced spine range of motion. Neurosci Lett 357:135–138, 2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heiden, T. L., D. J. Sanderson, J. T. Inglis, and G. P. Siegmund. Adaptations to normal human gait on potentially slippery surfaces: the effects of awareness and prior slip experience. Gait Posture 24:237–246, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holm, S., A. Indahl, and M. Solomonow. Sensorimotor control of the spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 12:219–234, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huskisson, E. Visual analogue scales. In: Pain Measurement and Assessment, edited by R. Melzack. New York: Raven Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Indahl A, Kaigle A, Reikeras O, Holm S. Electromyographic response of the porcine multifidus musculature after nerve stimulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:2652–2658, 1995.

  16. Kajrolkar, T., F. Yang, Y. C. Pai, and T. Bhatt. Dynamic stability and compensatory stepping responses during anterior gait-slip perturbations in people with chronic hemiparetic stroke. J Biomech 47:2751–2758, 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiers, H., J. H. van Dieen, S. Brumagne, and L. Vanhees. Postural sway and integration of proprioceptive signals in subjects with LBP. Hum Mov Sci 39:109–120, 2015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lafortuna, C. L., N. A. Maffiuletti, F. Agosti, and A. Sartorio. Gender variations of body composition, muscle strength and power output in morbid obesity. Int J Obes (Lond) 29:833–841, 2005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Laird, R. A., J. Gilbert, P. Kent, and J. L. Keating. Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:229, 2014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, X., T. Bhatt, S. Wang, F. Yang, and Y. C. Pai. Retention of the “first-trial effect” in gait-slip among community-living older adults. Geroscience 39:93–102, 2017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lockhart, T. E., and J. Liu. Differentiating fall-prone and healthy adults using local dynamic stability. Ergonomics 51:1860–1872, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Maaswinkel, E., M. Griffioen, R. S. Perez, and J. H. van Dieen. Methods for assessment of trunk stabilization, a systematic review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 26:18–35, 2016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Manchikanti, L., V. Singh, F. J. Falco, R. M. Benyamin, and J. A. Hirsch. Epidemiology of low back pain in adults. Neuromodulation 17(Suppl 2):3–10, 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Marigold, D. S., A. J. Bethune, and A. E. Patla. Role of the unperturbed limb and arms in the reactive recovery response to an unexpected slip during locomotion. J Neurophysiol 89:1727–1737, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mueller, J., T. Engel, S. Mueller, J. Stoll, H. Baur, and F. Mayer. Effects of sudden walking perturbations on neuromuscular reflex activity and three-dimensional motion of the trunk in healthy controls and back pain symptomatic subjects. PLoS One 12:e0174034, 2017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pai, Y. C., T. Bhatt, E. Wang, D. Espy, and M. J. Pavol. Inoculation against falls: rapid adaptation by young and older adults to slips during daily activities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91:452–459, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pai, Y. C., F. Yang, T. Bhatt, and E. Wang. Learning from laboratory-induced falling: long-term motor retention among older adults. Age (Dordr) 36:9640, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pavol, M. J., E. F. Runtz, B. J. Edwards, and Y. C. Pai. Age influences the outcome of a slipping perturbation during initial but not repeated exposures. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57:M496–M503, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research applications to practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2009.

  30. Selles RW, Wagenaar RC, Smit TH, Wuisman PI. Disorders in trunk rotation during walking in patients with low back pain: a dynamical systems approach. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16:175–181, 2001.

  31. Siegmund, G. P., T. L. Heiden, D. J. Sanderson, J. T. Inglis, and J. R. Brault. The effect of subject awareness and prior slip experience on tribometer-based predictions of slip probability. Gait Posture 24:110–119, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stanton TR, Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Latimer J, McAuley JH. After an episode of acute low back pain, recurrence is unpredictable and not as common as previously thought. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2923–2928, 2008.

  33. Sung, P. S., and P. Danial. Gender difference of shoulder-pelvic kinematic integration for trunk rotation directions in healthy older adults. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 50:56–62, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sung, P. S., and Y. W. Ham. Comparing postural strategy changes following adapted versus non-adapted responses in subjects with and without spinal stenosis. Man Ther 15:261–266, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sung, P. S., and P. M. Leininger. A kinematic and kinetic analysis of spinal region in subjects with and without recurrent low back pain during one leg standing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 30:696–702, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sung PS, Danial P. Analysis of relative kinematic index with normalized standing time between subjects with and without recurrent low back pain. Eur. Spine J. 26:518–527, 2016.

  37. Tong, M. H., S. J. Mousavi, H. Kiers, P. Ferreira, K. Refshauge, and J. van Dieen. Is there a relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 98(120–36):e2, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Trainor, T. J., and M. A. Trainor. Etiology of low back pain in athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep 3:41–46, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsao, H., M. P. Galea, and P. W. Hodges. Reorganization of the motor cortex is associated with postural control deficits in recurrent low back pain. Brain 131:2161–2171, 2008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tsao H, Danneels LA, Hodges PW. Smudging the motor brain in young adults with recurrent low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1721–1727, 2011.

  41. van Dieen, J. H., J. Cholewicki, and A. Radebold. Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability of the lumbar spine. Spine 28:834–841, 2003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Vuillerme, N., N. Teasdale, and V. Nougier. The effect of expertise in gymnastics on proprioceptive sensory integration in human subjects. Neurosci Lett 311:73–76, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of Health Professions at Central Michigan University (ION 42041-15647 and FRCE 48151).

Ethical Approval

Institutional Review Board at Central Michigan University (955053-3).

Funding

Central Michigan University (ION 42041-15647 and FRCE 48151).

Conflict of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul S. Sung.

Additional information

Associate Editor Dan Elson oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sung, P.S., Danial, P. Trunk Reaction Time and Kinematic Changes Following Slip Perturbations in Subjects with Recurrent Low Back Pain. Ann Biomed Eng 46, 488–497 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1972-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1972-8

Keywords

Navigation