Upper trapezius muscle activity in healthy office workers: reliability and sensitivity of occupational exposure measures to differences in sex and hand dominance

9Citations
Citations of this article
75Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Patterns of cervical muscle activity may contribute to overuse injuries in office workers. The purpose of this investigation was to characterise patterns of upper trapezius muscle activity in pain-free office workers using traditional occupational exposure measures and a modified Active Amplitude Probability Distribution Function (APDF), which considers only periods of active muscle contraction. Bilateral trapezius muscle activity was recorded in 77 pain-free office workers for 1–2 full days in their natural work environment. Mean amplitude, gap frequency, muscular rest and Traditional and Active APDF amplitudes were calculated. All measures demonstrated fair to substantial reliability. Dominant muscles demonstrated higher amplitudes of activity and less muscular rest compared to non-dominant, and women demonstrated less muscular rest with no significant difference in amplitude assessed by Active APDF compared to men. These findings provide normative data to identify atypical motor patterns that may contribute to persistence or recurrence of neck pain in office workers. Practitioner Summary: Upper trapezius muscle activity was characterised in a large cohort of pain-free workers using electromyographic recordings from office environments. Dominant muscles demonstrated higher activity and less rest than non-dominant, and women demonstrated less rest than men. Results may be used to identify atypical trapezius muscle activity in office workers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Marker, R. J., Balter, J. E., Nofsinger, M. L., Anton, D., Fethke, N. B., & Maluf, K. S. (2016). Upper trapezius muscle activity in healthy office workers: reliability and sensitivity of occupational exposure measures to differences in sex and hand dominance. Ergonomics, 59(9), 1205–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1130860

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free