Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Testing position in neutral standing posture with and without erector spinae vibration.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Precise timeline of the experiment.

Participants were asked to perform a set of five trials (force reproduction task at 60% of their MCV) following an auditory signal which was heard every thirty seconds, for each of the vibration conditions (no vibration, 80 Hz). The order of appearance of vibration conditions (no vibration, 80 Hz vibration) differed between block 1 and block 2 (and between block 3 and block 4) to limit any vibration sequence effect.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Representative data defining the Constant Error (CE) and Variable Error (VE) calculations for one experimental condition of a participant.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Basic data [Mean (±SD)] on cLBP and healthy study participants.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 4.

Comparison of mean constant errors for both groups in each condition (mean ± standard error)

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of mean absolute errors for both groups in each condition (mean ± standard error)

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Means and standard errors of the sEMG activity of the erector spinae at L4-5 level for both groups in each condition.

The presence of back muscle fatigue led patients with cLBP to a significant decrease in sEMGRMS activity as compared to the no fatigue condition.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 2.

Mean (±SD) sEMG median time-frequency slope at L1 and L4-5 levels and modified Sorensen total holding time in sec for both groups.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Mean (±SD) level of perceived exertion during the fatigue protocol.

More »

Table 3 Expand