↓ Skip to main content

Co-contraction characteristics of lumbar muscles in patients with lumbar disc herniation during different types of movement

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 801)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
10 tweeters
1 Q&A thread


8 Dimensions

Readers on

43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Co-contraction characteristics of lumbar muscles in patients with lumbar disc herniation during different types of movement
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12938-018-0443-2
Pubmed ID

Wenjing Du, Huihui Li, Olatunji Mumini Omisore, Lei Wang, Wenmin Chen, Xiangjun Sun


Muscular performance is an important factor for the mechanical stability of lumbar spine in humans, in which, the co-contraction of lumbar muscles plays a key role. We hypothesized that when executing different daily living motions, the performance of the lumbar muscle co-contraction stabilization mechanism varies between patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and healthy controls. Hence, in this study, co-contraction performance of lumbar muscles between patients with LDH and healthy subjects was explored to check if there are significant differences between the two groups when performing four representative movements. Twenty-six LDH patients (15 females, 11 males) and a control group of twenty-eight subjects (16 females, 12 males) were recruited. Surface electromyography (EMG) signals were recorded from the external oblique, lumbar multifidus, and internal oblique/transversus abdominis muscles during the execution of four types of movement, namely: forward bending, backward bending, left lateral flexion and right lateral flexion. The acquired EMG signals were segmented, and wavelet decomposition was performed followed by reconstruction of the low-frequency components of the signal. Then, the reconstructed signals were used for further analysis. Co-contraction ratio was employed to assess muscle coordination and compare it between the LDH patients and healthy controls. The corresponding signals of the subjects in the two groups were compared to evaluate the differences in agonistic and antagonistic muscle performance during the different motions. Also, sample entropy was applied to evaluate complexity changes in lumbar muscle recruitment during the movements. Significant differences between the LDH and control groups were found in the studied situations (p < 0.05). During the four movements considered in this study, the participants of the LDH group exhibited a higher level of co-contraction ratio, lower agonistic, and higher antagonistic lumbar muscle activity (p < 0.01) than those of the control group. Furthermore, the co-contraction ratio of LDH patients was dominated by the antagonistic muscle activity during the movements, except for the forward bending motion. However, in the healthy control group, the agonistic muscle activity contributed more to the co-contraction ratio with an exception for the backward bending motion. Conversely, the sample entropy value was significantly lower for agonistic muscles of LDH group compared to the control group (p < 0.01) while the entropy value was significantly greater in antagonistic muscles (p < 0.01) during the four types of movement, respectively. Lumbar disc herniation patients exhibited numerous variations in the evaluated parameters that reflect the co-contraction of lumbar muscles, the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activities, and their respective sample entropy values when compared with the healthy control group. These variations could be due to the compensation mechanism that was required to stabilize the spine. The results of this study could facilitate the design of efficient rehabilitation methods for treatment of lumbar muscle dysfunctions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2021.
All research outputs
of 21,752,314 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
of 801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 295,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,752,314 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 801 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them