Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 31, Issue 2 , Pages 115-126 , February 2008

Altered Sensorimotor Integration With Cervical Spine Manipulation

  • Heidi Haavik Taylor, BSc(Chiro), PhD

      Affiliations

    • Director of Research, New Zealand College of Chiropractic, Auckland, New Zealand
    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: Heidi Haavik Taylor, BSc(Chiro), PhD, Director of Research, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Human Neurophysiology and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
    • Department/Institution work should be attributed to Human Neurophysiology and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Auckland.
    • ,
  • Bernadette Murphy, DC, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Postgraduate and MSc-Exercise Rehabilitation Coordinator and Director, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Human Neurophysiology and Rehabilitation Laboratory, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    • Department/Institution work should be attributed to Human Neurophysiology and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Auckland.

Received 6 October 2007 ,Revised 29 October 2007

  • Image Result

    Graph of normalized integral and time normalized function demonstrating the time of maximal difference between the two, which will be the time chosen to represent reonset of EMG for CSP duration calcu

    Graph of normalized integral and time normalized function demonstrating the time of maximal difference between the two, which will be the time chosen to represent reonset of EMG for CSP duration calculations.

  • Image Result
    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing the pre- and postmanipulation TS and CS50 + TS MEPs for both the APB and EIP muscles. Note the decrease in SICI (ie, less inhibition

    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing the pre- and postmanipulation TS and CS50 + TS MEPs for both the APB and EIP muscles. Note the decrease in SICI (ie, less inhibition of MEP in the CS50 + TS compared with premanipulation MEP) for the APB muscle.

  • Image Result
    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing the pre- and postmanipulation S1 and S1 + S2 MEPs for both the APB and EIP muscles. Note the increase in SICF for the APB muscle and

    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing the pre- and postmanipulation S1 and S1 + S2 MEPs for both the APB and EIP muscles. Note the increase in SICF for the APB muscle and the decrease in SICF for the EIP muscle after the motor training session.

  • Image Result
    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing baseline, postcontrol, and postmanipulation MEP and CSP for the APB muscle. Note the shortening of the CSP after manipulation.

    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing baseline, postcontrol, and postmanipulation MEP and CSP for the APB muscle. Note the shortening of the CSP after manipulation.

  • Image Result
    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing baseline, postcontrol, and postmanipulation MEP and CSP for the EIP muscle. Note the lengthening of the CSP after manipulation.

    Raw nonrectified EMG traces from one representative subject showing baseline, postcontrol, and postmanipulation MEP and CSP for the EIP muscle. Note the lengthening of the CSP after manipulation.

PII: S0161-4754(07)00344-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.011

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 31, Issue 2 , Pages 115-126 , February 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution