1 5005756328761622928

“Comparison of Muscle Activity Using Unstable Devices During a Forward Lunge” by Bouillon LE et al.
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note: This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

the Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. The article appears here in
its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the
submitting author. It has not been copyedited, proofed, or
formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Research Report
Article Title: Comparison of Muscle Activity Using Unstable Devices During a Forward Lunge
Authors: Lucinda E. Bouillon, Michael Hofener, Andrew O’Donnel, Amanda Milligan, and
Craig Obrock
Affiliations: School of Exercise & Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health & Human
Services, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Running Head: Unstable devices used during a forward lunge
Journal: Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Acceptance Date: February 5, 2019
©2019 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2018-0296
Title Comparison of muscle activity using unstable devices during a forward lunge
Authors’ names and affiliations
Lucinda E. Bouillon, PT, MPT, PhD

Doctor of Physical Therapy Program
School of Exercise & Rehabilitation Sciences
College of Health & Human Services
Health & Human Services Room 2003G
2801 W. Bancroft St.
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Michael Hofener, PT, DPT, CSCS


Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Andrew O’Donnel, PT, DPT

Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Amanda Milligan, PT, DPT

Toledo, OH 43606-3390
Craig Obrock, PT, DPT

Toledo, OH 43606-3390
ABSTRACT
Context: Unstable devices in various forms are used as therapeutic adjuncts for prevention or
following an injury. A slip-over-shoe design with inflatable domes (STEPRIGHT® Stability
Trainer) was developed to improve balance. It is unknown how this unstable device affects muscle
activity during a closed-chain exercise such as the forward lunge. Objective: To compare muscle
activity across three surfaces (STEPRIGHT®, BOSU® Balance Trainer, and firm) during a
forward lunge. Design: Within-subject, repeated measures Setting: University Physical Therapy
Research Laboratory. Participants: 20 healthy, recreationally active subjects: (23.4 + 1.47 yrs;
172.7+ 14.7 cm, 71.6+16.8 kg). Intervention: Each subject performed one set of ten repetitions
of forward lunge exercise in random order with STEPRIGHT®, BOSU®, and firm surface. Main
Outcome Measures: Surface electromyography (SEMG) data, normalized to maximum voluntary
isometric contractions (%MVIC), was used to assess muscle activity on rectus femoris (RF), vastus
medalis oblique (VMO), biceps femoris (BF), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), fibularis longus (FL),
and tibialis anterior (TA). Results: The repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was a
significant effect for surface type. During the descent of the lunge, the STEPRIGHT® elicited
higher RF (33+ 27%MVIC) compared to BOSU® (22+ 14%MVIC) and VMO (44+ 15%MVIC)
on STEPRIGHT® compared to firm (38+ 11%MVIC), (p<.05). During the ascent of the lunge,
the RF (38+ 27%MVIC) using STEPRIGHT® was higher than BOSU® (24+ 16%MVIC) and
STEPRIGHT® elicited higher VMO (65+ 20%MVIC) versus BOSU® (56+ 19%MVIC), (p<.01).
The STEPRIGHT® for FL was higher (descent: 51+ 20%MVIC; ascent:52+22%MVIC) than
BOSU® (descent: 36+15%MVIC; ascent:33+16%MVIC), or firm (descent: 33+12%MVIC;
ascent 35+15%MVIC:), (p<.001). Conclusions: Clinicians may choose to use the STEPRIGHT®
for strengthening VMO and FL muscles as these were over 41% MVIC or any of the three surfaces
for endurance training (< 25%MVIC) for BF muscle. This information may be helpful in exercise
dosage for forward lunges when using STEPRIGHT®, BOSU®, or a firm surface.
Key words: unstable device, electromyography, muscle activity, forward lunge

INTRODUCTION
Unstable surfaces are commonly used with closed-chain exercise in rehabilitation and
fitness centers to improve joint stability1,2 and enhance postural control.3Clinicians can choose
from a variety of unstable training equipment ranging from foam, wobble or rocker boards, balls,
or dome platforms (Both Sides Up balance trainer (BOSU®; Fitness Quest, Canton, OH). There
have also been shoes designed with an unstable sole that may allow for a greater degree of
movement with exercise.4 For example, the Masai barefoot Technology® (MBT), Winterthur, CH)
and the Sketchers Shape Up were developed with a rocker bottom shoe design. There are
numerous instability devices for clinicians to use with exercise training; however, it is not clear
how these devices affect muscle activity or how they can be used to enhance strengthening or
endurance training.
The uncertainty on the exercise dosage using unstable devices may be in part, due to the
mixed findings of how these devices affect muscle activity. Some studies have reported increased
muscle activity with instability devices. .5,6 Others have found lower muscle activity using an
inflatable ball compared to a stable surface.7,8 Conversely, rectus abdominus and external oblique
muscle activity were higher when exercising on a ball.9 Hamstring activity was found to be higher
performing single-leg squats on a foam pad whereas no differences between stable and unstable
surfaces were found for quadriceps activity.10 Higher thigh and lower leg muscle activity have
been observed when walking11 in unstable shoes compared to regular shoes. In contrast, walking
in regular shoes elicited higher leg muscle activity compared to the MBT shoe12 and no difference
was found for gluteus maximus and gastrocnemius when squatting with an unstable shoe.13 Despite
numerous studies assessing muscle activity with unstable surfaces, the findings are unclear which
creates confusion for clinicians when designing exercise programs.

Recently, an unstable platform using a slip-over-the-shoe design known as STEPRIGHT®
Stability Trainer, (Gorbel Inc., Victor, NY) has been developed. This device has two domes or
bladders on each shoe with one dome placed near the forefoot and the other near the heel and
Velcro straps used to secure the platform onto the individual’s shoe. Similar to the BOSU® trainer,
the bladders can be inflated or deflated to vary the training difficulty. The difference is that the
domes located on the plantar surface of shoes create an unstable surface compared to BOSU®
trainer that requires someone to step onto the dome platform. Currently, there are no studies
comparing muscle activity wearing the STEPRIGHT® Stability Trainer versus the BOSU® trainer
during a forward lunge. Quantifying muscle activity using these domed devices would help guide
clinicians when determining exercise dosage and progression. The comparison of these two
domed devices also provides the clinicians with more choices when selecting exercise modes.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare lower extremity muscle activity during
a common weight-bearing exercise (forward lunge) on three different surfaces (STEPRIGHT®,
BOSU®, and firm surface). The hypothesis tested was that the STEPRIGHT® would result in
greatest muscle activity followed by BOSU®, and then firm surface.
METHODS
Subjects
Twenty healthy, recreationally active adults, 13 females and 7 males who ranged in age
from 20 to 25 years (mean + SD, 23+ 1.5 years) were recruited via convenience sampling using
flyers posted throughout a university campus. Recreationally active was defined by participating
in recreational activities/exercise at least 30 minutes per day, 3-5 days a week.14 Prior to
participation of the study, each subject read and signed an informed consent that was approved by
the University Biomedical Review Board, #201312.

A general health history was completed to determine activity level, previous injury and
medical history. Participants were excluded based on the presence of the following: balance and
visual impairments, BMI >30 kg/m2, and/or orthopedic injuries within the last six months.
Procedures
Following a five-minute warm up on a cycle ergometer at a comfortable pace, each subject
was prepped for surface electrode placement. The skin was shaved, abraded, and cleansed at each
muscle belly site using 70% isopropyl alcohol. Self-adhesive silver-silver chloride snap surface
pre-gelled electrodes, (Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) were placed in a bipolar configuration
on the skin parallel to the muscle fiber orientation with an interelectrode distance of approximately
2.0 cm.15 Six electrodes were placed on the dominant leg, as defined by the subject’s preferred
kicking leg reported on the health history subject profile, (Table 1).
For normalization of SEMG data, three maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC)
were performed in standard manual muscle test positions17 for the six muscles analyzed as
described below. Each of the three MVIC’s was held for five seconds followed by three-second
rests between contractions. The rectus femoris was tested in sitting, and manual resistance applied
approximately 400 from full knee extension.17 Tibialis anterior test position was in sitting with
knee flexed and manual resistance applied against the medial and dorsal aspects of the foot, in the
direction of plantarflexion and eversion.17 Fibularis longus was tested in the seated position with
the knee flexed and manual resistance applied in the direction of inversion and dorsiflexion.17 The
biceps femoris was tested in prone position with knee flexed to 450 and lower leg in external
rotation and manual resistance applied medially and in the direction of knee extension.17 Lateral
gastrocnemius was tested prone and manual resistance applied to the plantar surface of the
forefoot.18 Vastus medialis oblique was tested with hips flexed to 900, knee flexed between 450
and 600, and resistance applied just above the ankle.17 The average SEMG amplitudes collected
during the lunge was normalized to the highest MVIC value obtained during manual muscle tests,
and expressed as percentage of MVIC (%MVIC).
Muscle activity data were collected using a surface telemetry SEMG system (Noraxon
Myosystem Telemyo Direct Transmission System (DTS), Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ).
Raw SEMG data were sampled at 1000Hz for each of the six muscles on the dominant limb. The
SEMG amplifier bandwidth frequency was 10Hz to 500 Hz.
Forward Lunge
The subjects were given verbal instructions and demonstrations for the lunge exercise on
each surface type. Subjects were also given the opportunity to acclimate to the pace, surface types,
and exercise for approximately two minutes prior to data collection. Participants were assigned a
random order for each surface; firm, STEPRIGHT® Stability Trainer (Figure 1), BOSU® Balance
Trainer (Figure 2). Subjects completed one set of ten repetitions of forward lunges on each surface
at a pace of 60 bpm using a metronome.19 This rate was equivalent to completing both the descent
and ascent phases of the movement within 4.0 seconds, allowing 2.0 seconds per phase. Subjects
wore their own athletic shoes while standing on the firm and BOSU® surfaces as well as while
using the STEPRIGHT®.
Leg length was measured in supine position from the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS)
to the inferior portion of the medial malleolus of the dominant leg. The leg length was used to
standardize the stride distance of the forward lunge, 65% of leg length.20 A piece of tape was
placed on the floor as a visual marker and the subjects were instructed to reach the heel to the
adjusted distance. The subjects stood with their feet shoulder width apart and hands on their hips.
Participants were instructed to make full foot-flat while maintaining hip and knee flexion to 900
and avoiding ground contact with the non-dominant knee while keeping their trunk in an erect
position. The subjects returned to the starting position with full knee extension of the lunge leg.
SEMG Signal Processing
Raw SEMG signals were full-waved rectified, smoothed with a root-mean-square
algorithm at a time constant of 300 milliseconds. The SEMG signals were directed through a 12-
bit analog-digital converter (Telemyo, Norazon USA, Inc, Scottsdale, AZ). The raw data was
stored in a personal computer and Myoresearch 3.0 software (Noraxon USA, Inc, Scottsdale, AZ)
and used to process and analyze the data. The raw SEMG signals was obtained during the middle
portion of the trial, 4th 5th, and 6th repetitions.
Each repetition lasted four seconds, capturing the initiation through completion of the
movement. The onset of each of the six muscle contractions during the lunge was marked by the
start of motion as noted on the video recording when the muscle SEMG amplitude was 10μV of
baseline. The lunge was further divided into two phases: descent (eccentric) and ascent
(concentric). The descent phase of the lunge was defined as the time of onset of activity to
maximum knee flexion of the forward lunge leg, and ascent phase was defined as the time from
maximum knee flexion to maximum knee extension of the forward lunge leg.
Statistical Analysis
Repetitions four through six of each exercise were converted to a mean amplitude for the
six muscles and used for SEMG analysis of the forward lunge exercise. The average peak MVICs
generated from each of the six manual muscle tests was used to normalize the SEMG amplitudes
for each muscle and expressed as %MVIC. Shapiro-Wilk’s W-test was applied to examine
normality in the distribution of %MVIC data. A two-way (three surfaces x six muscles) analysis
of variance (ANOVA) with repeated-measures for each descent and ascent phase of the lunge
using SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). We were not interested in comparing the phases
of the lunge; therefore, we performed separate analyses for each phase of each muscle during the
lunge. The independent variables surface types (firm, BOSU®, STEPRIGHT®). Post-hoc
comparisons of the means of interest were conducted using the Bonferroni procedure. Significance
was set at a p-value of p < .05. Partial eta-squared (ƞp2) for ANOVA was used to report the effect
size with ƞp2 interpreted based on the guidelines .02 is small, .13 is medium, and .26 is large.20
RESULTS
Descent of the Lunge
The repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference for type
of surface with a large effect size, Wilks’Lambda=.29, F(12,66)=4.80, p=.0001, ƞp2=.47). Post hoc
Bonferroni correction (Table 2) revealed that RF was 11%MVIC higher wearing the
STEPRIGHT® compared to using the BOSU®, p=.02. The VMO was 6%MVIC more active
wearing the STEPRIGHT® compared to the firm surface, p=.04. The BF muscle was similar
across the three surfaces and ranged between 12%MVIC to 14%MVIC. Likewise, TA (38%MVIC
to 41%MVIC) and LG (31%MVIC to 38%MVIC) were not different across the three surfaces.
The FL muscle was 15%MVIC more active wearing the STEPRIGHT® compared to compared to
BOSU® and 18%MVIC greater than on firm surface.
Ascent of the Lunge
The repeated measures ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference for type
of surface with a large effect size, Wilks’Lambda=.30, F(12,66)=4.59, p=.001, ƞp2=.45). Post hoc
Bonferroni correction (Table 3) revealed that RF was 14%MVIC higher wearing the
STEPRIGHT® compared to using the BOSU® The VMO was also 9%MVIC more active using
the STEPRIGHT® compared to the BOSU®. The BF muscle was similar across the three surfaces
and ranged between 12%MVIC to 16%MVIC. Likewise, TA (34%MVIC to 36%MVIC) and LG
(30%MVIC to 35%MVIC) were not different across the three surfaces. The FL was 19%MVIC
more active wearing the STEPRIGHT® compared to BOSU® and 17%MVIC more active than
on a firm surface.
DISCUSSION
In this investigation, we assessed how muscle activity of the lower extremity was affected
during a forward lunge across three different surfaces. Our hypotheses were partially accepted as
the STEPRIGHT® elicited higher rectus femoris, VMO, and fibularis longus activity during
portions of the lunge compared to the BOSU® trainer or firm surface, however no surface
differences were found for biceps femoris, lateral gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior.
Our study examined normalized SEMG data (%MVIC) for the six muscles because it can
be used to estimate exercise intensity.22 Exercises which elicit high amplitudes of normalized
SEMG muscle activity are sufficient for muscle strengthening. Specifically, a muscle activity
below 25%MVIC is considered endurance and 40% to 60% MVIC is an appropriate range for
strengthening.23 The %MVIC can also be categorized into low (0-20%MVIC), moderate (21-
40%MVIC), high (41-60%MVIC), and very high (>61%MVIC).24,25
During the descent and ascent phases of the lunge, the rectus femoris activity ranged from
22%MVIC to 35%MVIC, regardless of surface type. These %MVIC values are appropriate for
endurance or moderate intensity training.23-25 The rectus femoris is a biarticular muscle acting on
both the hip and knee during the lunge. Robertson et al observed that the rectus femoris is a hip
flexor as well as a hip and knee stabilizer during the descent phase of a squat on a firm surface.
The muscle eccentrically contracts to prevent excessive hip extension while simultaneously
extending the knee during the ascent phase.26 Depending upon the rehabilitation goal, the %MVIC
values produced during the forward lunge in both phases, regardless of surface type, provides
sufficient endurance stimulus at the hip and knee for eccentric or concentric exercise training.
The VMO had the moderate to high values for muscle activity ranging from 36%MVIC to
44%MVIC (descent) and 56%MVIC to 65%MVIC (ascent) of the forward lunge regardless of
surface type suggesting that the forward lunge is more of a strengthening exercise especially when
wearing the STEPRIGHT®. The forward lunge is a functional exercise that moves the knee into
extension while in a double limb base of support during the ascent. The VMO eccentrically
controls knee flexion while positioned in a staggered tandem stance during the descent. During
ascent, the VMO muscle assists with knee extension and provides stability as the knee moves into
terminal extension. The highest %MVIC for the VMO when wearing the STEPRIGHT® was
during the descent (44%MVIC) and 65%MVIC during the ascent phase. The STEPRIGHT®
device with the inflatable domes placed on the bottom of each shoe create more medial and lateral
instability that challenges the VMO not only to move the knee but to enhance joint stability. The
VMO has a very active role in resisting lateral patellar mal-tracking and providing medial patellar
stability.27 Specifically, the VMO is best as a joint stabilizer between 400 of knee flexion to full
extension.28 A clinician may choose a forward lunge on either dome or firm surface tested early
in the rehabilitation progression as the forward lunge requires moderate intensity level (24%MVIC
to 38%MVIC) for the rectus femoris. In contrast, wearing the STEPRIGHT® device resulted in
higher muscle activity compared to the other surfaces ranging from 44%MVIC to 65%MVIC.
This may guide the clinician to either lower the exercise dosage early in the rehabilitation program
or implement the forward lunges later in the rehabilitation progression when wearing the
STEPRIGHT® device.
Biceps femoris muscle activity level was low during both phases of the lunge (11-
16%MVIC) regardless of surface type. The biceps femoris muscle activity observed in our study
is consistent with others who have also reported low values during forward lunges.25,29 A forward
trunk lean compared to neutral trunk position has been found to increase hip extensor activity.29
The low biceps femoris %MVIC in our study may be because we instructed the participants to
hold their trunk upright compared to having more of a forward trunk lean. Since the biceps femoris
activity was relatively low throughout the forward lunge on all surfaces tested, clinicians may
choose to use this exercise early in the rehabilitation progression or be aware that exercise dosage
will need to increase in order to challenge the biceps femoris.
The lateral gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior muscles were both moderately active during
the descent and ascent phases of the lunge, regardless of surface type. The lateral gastrocnemius
was moderately active throughout the forward lunge as it moved the knee into flexion during the
descent as well as eccentrically controlled dorsiflexion at the ankle. Since both tibialis anterior
and lateral gastrocnemius muscles are very active during walking and running,30 identifying that
the forward lunge on any surface type can elicit moderate-level intensity for these muscles will
help clinicians determine exercise dosage and progression with gait training.
The fibularis longus was most active when wearing the STEPRIGHT® compared to other
surfaces during both the descent and ascent phases of the lunge, and was in the intensity range
sufficient for fibularis longus strengthening. The fibularis longus muscle is critical in controlling
inversion motion and weakness of this muscle is related to chronic ankle instability.31 The shape
of the domes and placement beneath the plantar surface of the shoes on the STEPRIGHT® create
more lateral-medial instability compared to the anterior-posterior direction. As a result, the tibialis
anterior and fibularis longus activity during portions of the lunge were moderately to highly active
suggesting that wearing the STEPRIGHT® device during the forward lunge challenged the
invertor and evertor muscles to provide ankle stability. Strengthening the fibularis longus muscle
may help with the prevention of ankle sprains. People without ankle injuries or instability rely
more on the fibularis longus muscle during perturbations compared to tibialis anterior or soleus
muscles.32 The fibularis longus also acts with the tibialis posterior to form a functional sling to
support the medial and transverse arches of the foot.30 The intensity range from 40%MVIC to just
over 50%MVIC while lunging using the STEPRIGHT® is sufficient to strengthen tibialis anterior
and fibularis longus muscles. If there was significant fibular longus or tibialis anterior weakness,
clinicians may want to choose either the firm or BOSU® early in the rehabilitation plan or lower
the exercise dosage when using the STEPRIGHT®.

Our study was a quasi-experimental crossover study assessing the acute effects of using
unstable surfaces. We were not able to determine long-term usage of these surfaces during a lunge,
only the acute effects of several repetitions during a forward lunge. There is also the possibility
of cross talk between adjacent muscles; however, this limitation was minimized by using standard
procedures of electrode placement. Finally, our results cannot be generalized to people who are
not young adults with or without any pathology.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study found that the STEPRIGHT® compared to the BOSU® trainer elicited higher
rectus femoris, VMO, and fibularis longus muscle activity during portions of the forward lunge.
Wearing the STEPRIGHT® consistently produced strengthening levels (>40%MVIC) for the
VMO and fibularis longus muscles during the forward lunge. Clinicians may choose to use either
the STEPRIGHT® Stability or BOSU® Balance Trainers to supplement with forward lunge
exercises for endurance or stability training specifically for rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, and
lateral gastrocnemius muscles. The results of this study provides clinicians with information on
exercise dosage or progression using a firm surface, STEPRIGHT® Stability or the BOSU®
Balance Trainers during a forward lunge.

REFERENCES
1. Risberg MA, Holm I, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L. Neuromuscular training versus

strength training during the first six months after anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction: A randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2007;87:737-750.
2. McKeon PO and Hertel J. Systematic review of postural control and lateral ankle
instability: part I: can deficits be detected with instrumental testing? J Athl Train.
2008;43:293-304.
3. Anderson K & Behm D. The impact of instability resistance training on balance and
stability. Sports Med. 2005;35:43-53.
4. Nigg B, Hintzen S, Feber R. Effect of unstable shoe construction on lower extremity gait
characteristics. Clin Biomech. 2006;82-88.
5. Borreani S, Calatayud J, Martin J, Colado J, Tella V, Behm D. Exercise intensity
progression for exercises performed on unstable and stable platforms based on ankle
muscle activation. Gait & Posture 2014;39:404-409.
6. Landry S, Nigg B, Tecante K. Standing in an unstable shoe increases postural sway and
muscle activity of selected smaller extrinsic foot muscles. Gait & Posture 2010;32:215-
219.
7. McBride J, Cormie P, Deane R. Isometric squat force output and muscle activity in
stable and unstable conditions. J Strength and Cond Res. 2006;20:915-918.
8. Behm DG, Anderson K, Curnew RS. Muscle force and activation under stable and
unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:416-422.
9. Imai A, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y, Shina I, Tatsumura M, Izumi S, Shiraki H. Trunk muscle
activity during lumbar stabilization exercises on both a stable and unstable surface. J
Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40:369-375.
10. Youdas J, Hollman J, Hitchcock J, Hoyme G, Johnsen J. Comparison of hamstring and
quadriceps femoris electromyography activity between men and women during a single-
limb squat on both a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:105-111.
11. Romkes J, Rudmann C, Brunner R. Changes in gait and SEMG when walking with the
Masai Barefoot Technique. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:75-81.
12. Sacco I, Sartor C, Cacciari L et al. Effect of rocker non-heeled shoe on SEMG and
ground reaction forces during gait without previous training. Gait Posture 2012;36:312-
315.
13. Horsak B, Hochhauser M, Bruckner J, Werner B, Wondrasch B, Figl-Hertlein A. Lower
extremity muscle activity during squatting with unstable shoes. J Phys Ther and Sports
Med. 2014;3:8-21.
14. American College of Sports Medicine, Reibe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M:
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA:
Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Co. 2018.
15. Criswell E. Cram's Introduction to Surface Electromyography. 2nd ed. Sudbury MA:
Jones & Bartlett Publishers. 2010.
16. Perotto AL. Anatomical Guide for the Electromyographer: The Limbs and the Trunk. 4th
Ed. Springfield, IL: Thomas Co. 2005.
17. Hislop HJ, Montgomery J. Muscle Testing Techniques of Muscle Examination.
Philadelphia, PA. W.B.Saunders Co. 2002.
18. Palmer M & Epler M. Fundamentals of Musculoskeletal Assessment Techniques.2nd ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Co. 1998.
19. Distefano L, Blackburn JT, Marshall S, Padua D. Gluteal muscle activation during
common therapeutic exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39:532-540.
20. Bouillon LE, Wilhelm J, Eisel P, Wiesner J, Rachow M, Hatteberg L.
Electromyographic assessment of muscle activity between genders during unilateral
weight-bearing tasks using adjusted distances. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2012;7(6):595-601.
21. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. 1988.
22. Ayotte N, Stetts D, Keenan G, Greenway E. Electromyographic analysis of selected
lower extremity muscles during 5 unilateral weight-bearing exercises. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 2007;37:48-55.
23. Anderson LL, Magnusson Sp, Nielsen M, Haleem J, Poulsen K, Aagard P.
Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance
exercises: implications for rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2006;86:683-697.
24. Reiman MP, Bolgla LA, Loudon JK. A literature review of studies evaluation gluteus
maximus and gluteus medius activation during rehabilitation exercises. Physiother
Theory Pract. 2012:28:257-268.
25. Escamilla RF, Lewis C, Bell D, Bramblet G, Daffron J, et al. Core muscle activation
during swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
2010;40:265-276.
26. Robertson DGE, Wilson JMJ, St. Pierre T. Lower extremity muscle functions during full
squats. J Appl Biomech. 2008;24:333-339.
27. Stephen J, Alva A, Lumpaopong P, Williams, A, Amis A. A cadaveric model to evaluate
the effect of unloading the medial quadriceps on patellar tracking and patellofemoral joint
pressure and stability. J Exp Orthop. 2018;5:34-39.
28. Fulkerson J. Diagnosis and treatment of patients with patellofemoral pain. Am J Sports
Med. 2002; 30:447-456.
29. Farrokhi S, Pollard CD, Souza RB, Chen YJ, Reischl S, Powers CM. Trunk position
influences the kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity of the lead lower extremity during
the forward lunge exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:403-409.
30. Neumann DA Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System. Foundations for
Rehabilitation. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier, Inc. 2017.
31. Konradsen L Voigt M, Hojsgaard C. Ankle inversion injuries: the role of the dynamic
defense mechanism. Am J Sports Med. 1997;25:54-58.
32. Needle A, Kaminski T, Baumeister J, Higginson J, Farquhar W, Swanik C. The
relationship between joint stiffness and muscle activity in unstable ankles and copers. J
Sport Rehabil. 2017;26:15-26.
Figure 1: Forward lunge wearing the STEPRIGHT® Stability Trainer

Figure 2: Forward lunge using the BOSU® Balance Trainer

Table 1: Surface electrode placement for six muscles.
Muscles Surface Electrode Placement
Biceps femoris parallel to the muscle fibers on the lateral aspect of the thigh midway
between the ischial tuberosity and the crease of the popliteal fossa.15
Fibularis longus below the head of fibula and parallel to the muscle fibers16
Lateral parallel to muscle fibers 2 cm lateral from midline, just distal to the
gastrocnemius knee15
Vastus medialis oblique angle (55 degrees), two centimeters medially from the superior
oblique rim of the patella15
Rectus femoris midway between the iliac crest and base of the patella15
Tibialis anterior parallel and just lateral to the medial shaft of the tibia, approximately ¼
to 1/3 of distance between the knee and ankle15
Table 2: Muscle activity (%MVIC) for descent phase of the lunge, (mean ± SD).
Rectus VMO Biceps Tibialis Fibularis Lateral

Femoris Femoris Anterior Longus Gastroc
Firm 32±27 38±11† 12±8 38±14 33±12‡ 31±24
BOSU® 22±14* 36±12 12±5 39±16 36±15‡ 36±14
STEPRIGHT® 33±27* 44±15† 14±7 41±17 51±20‡ 38±16
*significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than BOSU® for rectus femoris, p=.02, ƞ p2=.245
†significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than Firm for VMO, p=.04, ƞ p2=.166
‡significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than BOSU® and Firm for fibularis longus, p=.001, ƞ p2=.580
Table 3: Muscle activity (%MVIC) for ascent phase of the lunge, (mean ± SD).
Rectus VMO Biceps Tibialis Fibularis Lateral

Femoris Femoris Anterior Longus Gastroc
Firm 34±31 62±13 12±6 36±15 35±15‡ 31±20
BOSU® 24±16* 56±19† 11±4 34±17 33±16‡ 30 ±13

STEPRIGHT® 38±27* 65±20† 16±10 40±28 52±22‡ 35 ±16
*significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than BOSU® for rectus femoris, p=.004, ƞ p2=.279
†significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than BOSU® for VMO, p=.01, ƞp2=.159
‡significant difference, with STEPRIGHT® greater than BOSU® and Firm for fibularis longus, p=.001, ƞ p2=.559

1 5005756328761622928

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 5005756328761622928

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

“Comparison of Muscle Activity Using Unstable Devices During a Forward Lunge” by Bouillon LE et al.

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

Note: This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

Section: Original Research Report

Running Head: Unstable devices used during a forward lunge

Journal: Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

Acceptance Date: February 5, 2019

©2019 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Authors’ names and affiliations

Lucinda E. Bouillon, PT, MPT, PhD

Michael Hofener, PT, DPT, CSCS

2801 W. Bancroft St.

Andrew O’Donnel, PT, DPT

Amanda Milligan, PT, DPT

Craig Obrock, PT, DPT

Key words: unstable device, electromyography, muscle activity, forward lunge

creates confusion for clinicians when designing exercise programs.

Recently, an unstable platform using a slip-over-the-shoe design known as STEPRIGHT®

a common weight-bearing exercise (forward lunge) on three different surfaces (STEPRIGHT®,

greatest muscle activity followed by BOSU®, and then firm surface.

the University Biomedical Review Board, #201312.

Following a five-minute warm up on a cycle ergometer at a comfortable pace, each subject

and expressed as percentage of MVIC (%MVIC).

SEMG amplifier bandwidth frequency was 10Hz to 500 Hz.

using the STEPRIGHT®.

SEMG Signal Processing

Raw SEMG signals were full-waved rectified, smoothed with a root-mean-square

portion of the trial, 4th 5th, and 6th repetitions.

Descent of the Lunge

BOSU® and 18%MVIC greater than on firm surface.

Ascent of the Lunge

and ranged between 12%MVIC to 16%MVIC. Likewise, TA (34%MVIC to 36%MVIC) and LG

40%MVIC), high (41-60%MVIC), and very high (>61%MVIC).24,25

will need to increase in order to challenge the biceps femoris.

the exercise dosage when using the STEPRIGHT®.

not young adults with or without any pathology.

Balance Trainers during a forward lunge.

1. Risberg MA, Holm I, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L. Neuromuscular training versus

Figure 1: Forward lunge wearing the STEPRIGHT® Stability Trainer

Figure 2: Forward lunge using the BOSU® Balance Trainer

Table 1: Surface electrode placement for six muscles.

Muscles Surface Electrode Placement

Rectus VMO Biceps Tibialis Fibularis Lateral

Rectus VMO Biceps Tibialis Fibularis Lateral

BOSU® 24±16* 56±19† 11±4 34±17 33±16‡ 30 ±13

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen