Linear time delay methods and stability analyses of the human spine. Effects of neuromuscular reflex response.

Linear stability methods were applied to a biomechanical model of the human musculoskeletal spine to investigate effects of reflex gain and reflex delay on stability. Equations of motion represented a dynamic 18 degrees-of-freedom rigid-body model with time-delayed reflexes. Optimal muscle activation levels were identified by minimizing metabolic power with the constraints of equilibrium and stability with zero reflex time delay. Muscle activation levels and associated muscle forces were used to find the delay margin, i.e., the maximum reflex delay for which the system was stable. Results demonstrated that stiffness due to antagonistic co-contraction necessary for stability declined with increased proportional reflex gain. Reflex delay limited the maximum acceptable proportional reflex gain, i.e., long reflex delay required smaller maximum reflex gain to avoid instability. As differential reflex gain increased, there was a small increase in acceptable reflex delay. However, differential reflex gain with values near intrinsic damping caused the delay margin to approach zero. Forward-dynamic simulations of the fully nonlinear time-delayed system verified the linear results. The linear methods accurately found the delay margin below which the nonlinear system was asymptotically stable. These methods may aid future investigations in the role of reflexes in musculoskeletal stability.

Role of reflex gain and reflex delay in spinal stability--a dynamic simulation.

The goal of this study was to investigate the role of reflex and reflex time delay in muscle recruitment and spinal stability. A dynamic biomechanical model of the musculoskeletal spine with reflex response was implemented to investigate the relationship between reflex gain, co-contraction, and stability in the spine. The first aim of the study was to investigate how reflex gain affected co-contraction predicted in the model. It was found that reflexes allowed the model to stabilize with less antagonistic co-contraction and hence lower metabolic power than when limited to intrinsic stiffness alone. In fact, without reflexes there was no feasible recruitment pattern that could maintain spinal stability when the torso was loaded with 200N external load. Reflex delay is manifest in the paraspinal muscles and represents the time from a perturbation to the onset of reflex activation. The second aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between reflex delay and the maximum tolerable reflex gain. The maximum acceptable upper bound on reflex gain decreased logarithmically with reflex delay. Thus, increased reflex delay and reduced reflex gain requires greater antagonistic co-contraction to maintain spinal stability. Results of this study may help understanding of how patients with retarded reflex delay utilize reflex for stability, and may explain why some patients preferentially recruit more intrinsic stiffness than healthy subjects.

Co-contraction recruitment and spinal load during isometric trunk flexion and extension.

BACKGROUND: Pushing and pulling tasks account for 20% of occupational low-back injury claims. Primary torso muscle groups recruited during pushing tasks include rectus abdominis and the external obliques. However, analyses suggest that antagonistic co-contraction of the paraspinal muscles is necessary to stabilize the spine during flexion exertions. The study quantified co-contraction and spinal load differences during isometric flexion and extension exertions. The goal was to provide insight into the mechanisms requiring greater co-contraction during trunk flexion exertions compared to extension exertions. METHODS: Electromyographic (EMG) signals were recorded from the trunk muscles of healthy volunteers during isometric trunk flexion and extension exertions. A biomechanical model was implemented to estimate total muscle force from the measured EMG and trunk moment data. A similar model estimated the muscle forces necessary to achieve equilibrium while minimizing the sum of squared muscle forces. The difference in these forces represented co-contraction. Spinal load attributed to co-contraction was computed. RESULTS: Average co-contraction during flexion exertions was approximately twice the value of co-contraction during extension, i.e. 28% and 13% of total muscle forces respectively. Co-contraction accounted for up to 47% of the total spinal load during flexion exertions. Consequently, spinal compression during the flexion tasks was nearly 50% greater than during extension exertions despite similar levels of trunk moment. INTERPRETATION: Co-contraction must be considered when evaluating spinal load during pushing exertions. Results underscore the need to consider neuromuscular control of spinal stability when evaluating the biomechanical risks.