Análisis de patrones electromiográficos de extremidad superior dominante y no dominante en una tarea de movimiento de alcance a velocidad independiente en personas sanas
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2015
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
Introducción: Estudios previos han demostrado diferencia entre el brazo dominante y no dominante en el inicio y término del movimiento principalmente en personas con accidente cerebro vascular, con alteración en la coordinación del movimiento, además se ha puesto en manifiesto la especialización que adopta cada hemisferio cerebral para colaborar en el control de las extremidades en diferentes maniobras (Sainburg 2002), no obstante la nueva visión está directamente relacionada a la especialización hemisférica , aun así esto sigue siendo un tema qué no está resuelto y sigue siendo cuestionado en las últimas décadas. Este estudio tiene como objetivo clarificar la variabilidad de los hemisferios cerebrales en la respuesta motora que se entrega para cada extremidad superior.
Metodología: El siguiente estudio de tipo explicativo y experimental tuvo una muestra en 10 personas sanas, entre 18 y 25 años con dominancia de su lado derecho (diestros), los cuales realizaron en un movimiento único de alcance y precisión en el plano horizontal para cada brazo, bajo la orden “lo más rápido posible”. Se obtuvo datos electromiográficos de 6 músculos agonistas y antagonistas y se analizó la variabilidad motora bajos la identificación de estrategias motoras a través del método “análisis de componente principal”.
Resultados: “Se obtuvieron seis componentes principales para cada brazo, los cuales sólo 2 explican la globalidad de la respuesta en el lado dominante y 3 en el lado no dominante, además de identificar diferencias en la estrategia utilizada bajo la significancia de cada variable o musculo de cada componente entre segmentos. En el cual destaca el componente principal 1 (PC1), del lado dominante, con la participación de los músculos; deltoideus anterioris, deltoideus posterioris, musculus biceps brachii y extensor carpi ulnaris. Así mismo, el componente principal 1 (PC1), del lado no dominante, con la participación de los músculos; deltoideus anterioris, biceps brachii y Extensor carpi ulnaris”
Conclusión: Se concluye que existe una diferencia en las estrategias utilizadas para lado dominante y lado no dominante en la misma tarea, en un plano horizontal, donde el lado dominante mantiene un control del movimiento principalmente a nivel proximal a través del hombro por una estabilización mayor. Además de la participación de bíceps braquial como antagonista para aportar en los movimiento del extensor ulnar como agonista a nivel distal. Por lo que se define así como principal estrategia a realizar para un movimiento de alcance y precisión en el plano horizontal bajo la orden “realice el movimiento lo más rápido posible”.
Introduction: Previous studies have shown differences between dominant and non-dominant arm at the beginning and end of the movement mainly in people with stroke, with impaired movement coordination. In addition it has become clear specialization in adopting each cerebral hemisphere to assist in controlling the limbs in different maneuvers (Sainburg 2002), however the new vision is directly related to hemispheric specialization, yet this is still an issue that It is not resolved and still questioned in recent decades. Methodology: The following explanatory study and experimental, had a sample in 10 healthy subjects, between 18 and 25 years, with predominance of the right side (right-handed), which take place in one movement range and accuracy in the horizontal plane for each arm, under the command "as quickly as possible." Six electromyography data agonists and antagonists were obtained and low variability motor identifying motor strategies are analyzed via principal component analysis method. Results: Six principal components for each arm were obtained, of which only 2 explain the totality of the response on the dominant side and 3 on the no dominant side, in addition to identifying differences in strategy used in the significance of each variable or muscle of each component between segments. In which highlights the principal component 1 (PC1), the dominant side, with the participation of the muscles; anterior deltoid, posterior deltoid and biceps brachial ulnar extensor carpi. Likewise, the principal component 1 (PC1), the non-dominant hand, with the participation of the muscles; anterior deltoids, biceps and brachial ulnar extensor. Conclusion: We conclude that there is a difference in the strategies used to dominant and non-dominant hand side on the same task in a horizontal plane, where the dominant side keeps track of the movement mainly proximally through the shoulder for greater stabilization. Besides involving biceps brachia antagonist to provide movement in the ulnar extensor agonist distally. As well as defined main strategy to make for a powerful and precise movement in the horizontal plane under the command "make the move as fast as possible".
Introduction: Previous studies have shown differences between dominant and non-dominant arm at the beginning and end of the movement mainly in people with stroke, with impaired movement coordination. In addition it has become clear specialization in adopting each cerebral hemisphere to assist in controlling the limbs in different maneuvers (Sainburg 2002), however the new vision is directly related to hemispheric specialization, yet this is still an issue that It is not resolved and still questioned in recent decades. Methodology: The following explanatory study and experimental, had a sample in 10 healthy subjects, between 18 and 25 years, with predominance of the right side (right-handed), which take place in one movement range and accuracy in the horizontal plane for each arm, under the command "as quickly as possible." Six electromyography data agonists and antagonists were obtained and low variability motor identifying motor strategies are analyzed via principal component analysis method. Results: Six principal components for each arm were obtained, of which only 2 explain the totality of the response on the dominant side and 3 on the no dominant side, in addition to identifying differences in strategy used in the significance of each variable or muscle of each component between segments. In which highlights the principal component 1 (PC1), the dominant side, with the participation of the muscles; anterior deltoid, posterior deltoid and biceps brachial ulnar extensor carpi. Likewise, the principal component 1 (PC1), the non-dominant hand, with the participation of the muscles; anterior deltoids, biceps and brachial ulnar extensor. Conclusion: We conclude that there is a difference in the strategies used to dominant and non-dominant hand side on the same task in a horizontal plane, where the dominant side keeps track of the movement mainly proximally through the shoulder for greater stabilization. Besides involving biceps brachia antagonist to provide movement in the ulnar extensor agonist distally. As well as defined main strategy to make for a powerful and precise movement in the horizontal plane under the command "make the move as fast as possible".
Notas
Tesis (Kinesiología)
Palabras clave
Brazo, Traumatismo, Rehabilitación, Trastornos Cerebrovasculares, Terapia del Movimiento