Motion Tape Strain During Trunk Muscle Engagement in Young, Healthy Participants

Overview

Journal Sensors (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2024 Nov 9

PMID 39517829

Authors

Spencer Spiegel

Elijah Wyckoff

Jay Barolo

Audrey Lee

Emilia Farcas

Job Godino

Kevin Patrick

Kenneth J Loh

Sara P Gombatto

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Motion Tape (MT) is a low-profile, disposable, self-adhesive wearable sensor that measures skin strain. Preliminary studies have validated MT for measuring lower back movement. However, further analysis is needed to determine if MT can be used to measure lower back muscle engagement. The purpose of this study was to measure differences in MT strain between conditions in which the lower back muscles were relaxed versus maximally activated.

Methods: Ten participants without low back pain were tested. A matrix of six MTs was placed on the lower back, and strain data were captured under a series of conditions. The first condition was a baseline trial, in which participants lay prone and the muscles of the lower back were relaxed. The subsequent trials were maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs), in which participants did not move, but resisted the examiner force in extension or rotational directions to maximally engage their lower back muscles. The mean MT strain was calculated for each condition. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze the effects of conditions (baseline, extension, right rotation, and left rotation) and MT position (1-6) on the MT strain. Post hoc analyses were conducted for significant effects from the overall analysis.

Results: The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition ( < 0.001) and a significant interaction effect of sensor and condition ( = 0.01). There were significant differences in MT strain between the baseline condition and the extension and rotation MVIC conditions, respectively, for sensors 4, 5, and 6 ( = 0.01-0.04). The largest differences in MT strain were observed between baseline and rotation conditions for sensors 4, 5, and 6.

Conclusions: MT can capture maximal lower back muscle engagement while the trunk remains in a stationary position. Lower sensors are better able to capture muscle engagement than upper sensors. Furthermore, MT captured muscle engagement during rotation conditions better than during extension.

References

Hodges P, van den Hoorn W . A vision for the future of wearable sensors in spine care and its challenges: narrative review. J Spine Surg. 2022; 8(1):103-116. PMC: 8990399. DOI: 10.21037/jss-21-112. View

Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C . The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73(6):968-74. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428. View

Mitchell K, Porter M, Anderson L, Phillips C, Arceo G, Montz B . Differences in lumbar spine and lower extremity kinematics in people with and without low back pain during a step-up task: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):369. PMC: 5574078. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1721-z. View

Wu A, March L, Zheng X, Huang J, Wang X, Zhao J . Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020; 8(6):299. PMC: 7186678. DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175. View

van Dieen J, Reeves N, Kawchuk G, van Dillen L, Hodges P . Analysis of Motor Control in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Key to Personalized Care?. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018; 49(6):380-388. PMC: 7393666. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2019.7916. View

Kent P, Laird R, Haines T . The effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on the clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain-a multicentre, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled, pilot trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015; 16:131. PMC: 4446825. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0591-5. View

van Dieen J, Reeves N, Kawchuk G, van Dillen L, Hodges P . Motor Control Changes in Low Back Pain: Divergence in Presentations and Mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018; 49(6):370-379. PMC: 7393576. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2019.7917. View

Papi E, Koh W, McGregor A . Wearable technology for spine movement assessment: A systematic review. J Biomech. 2017; 64:186-197. PMC: 5700811. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.09.037. View

Lehman G, McGill S . The importance of normalization in the interpretation of surface electromyography: a proof of principle. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999; 22(7):444-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-4754(99)70032-1. View

10.

Geisser M, Ranavaya M, Haig A, Roth R, Zucker R, Ambroz C . A meta-analytic review of surface electromyography among persons with low back pain and normal, healthy controls. J Pain. 2005; 6(11):711-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.06.008. View

11.

Amjadi M, Pichitpajongkit A, Lee S, Ryu S, Park I . Highly stretchable and sensitive strain sensor based on silver nanowire-elastomer nanocomposite. ACS Nano. 2014; 8(5):5154-63. DOI: 10.1021/nn501204t. View

12.

Lin Y, Mhaskar Y, Silder A, Sessoms P, Fraser J, Loh K . Muscle Engagement Monitoring Using Self-Adhesive Elastic Nanocomposite Fabrics. Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(18). PMC: 9503620. DOI: 10.3390/s22186768. View

13.

Sterling M, Jull G, Wright A . The effect of musculoskeletal pain on motor activity and control. J Pain. 2003; 2(3):135-45. DOI: 10.1054/jpai.2001.19951. View

14.

. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990-2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023; 5(6):e316-e329. PMC: 10234592. DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X. View

15.

Oddsson L, De Luca C . Activation imbalances in lumbar spine muscles in the presence of chronic low back pain. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002; 94(4):1410-20. DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01183.2001. View

16.

van Dieen J, Selen L, Cholewicki J . Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003; 13(4):333-51. DOI: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00041-5. View

17.

Lee A, Wyckoff E, Farcas E, Godino J, Patrick K, Spiegel S . Preliminary Validity and Acceptability of Motion Tape for Measuring Low Back Movement: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2024; 11:e57953. PMC: 11329853. DOI: 10.2196/57953. View

18.

Lee A, Dionicio P, Farcas E, Godino J, Patrick K, Wyckoff E . Physical Therapists' Acceptance of a Wearable, Fabric-Based Sensor System (Motion Tape) for Use in Clinical Practice: Qualitative Focus Group Study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024; 11:e55246. PMC: 10940997. DOI: 10.2196/55246. View

19.

Claus A, Hides J, Moseley G, Hodges P . Thoracic and lumbar posture behaviour in sitting tasks and standing: Progressing the biomechanics from observations to measurements. Appl Ergon. 2015; 53 Pt A:161-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.09.006. View

20.

Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S . A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008; 8(1):8-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005. View