"Education, Faculty of"@en . "Kinesiology, School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Siegmund, Gunter Paul"@en . "2009-09-16T20:31:49Z"@en . "2001"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "Most whiplash injuries are sustained in isolated rear-end collisions which occur without warning. Most studies of whiplash injury, however, have used multiple tests of subjects aware of the imminent perturbation. This thesis examined how multiple exposures and subject awareness of the presence, timing and amplitude of a whiplash-like perturbation affected the activation and amplitude of the neck muscle response and the peak kinematic response of the head and torso. In Experiment 1, the malleability of neck muscle reflexes was examined in 20 subjects (9F, 11M) who performed ballistic flexion and rotation head movements in a warned, simple reaction-time protocol. When a loud startling sound (124 dB) replaced the 'go' tone (76 dB), a hypermetric version of the reaction-time movement was evoked at the startle reflex onset latency. This result indicated that a reflex neck muscle response could be altered by mental preparation of a movement. In Experiment 2, 66 seated subjects (35F, 31M) underwent multiple perturbations with a peak forward acceleration of 1.5g. To their first perturbation, subjects who were deceived and unexpectedly perturbed responded differently than subjects given either exact or inexact information regarding perturbation timing. Advance warning of the perturbation appeared to produce anticipatory facilitation of the sensorimotor system mediating the reflex response. Subjects exposed to ten more perturbations exhibited a rapid habituation of their muscle response and complex changes in their kinematic response. Thirty-six of the 66 subjects (20F, 16M) then underwent 72 more perturbations interspersed with high (2.2g) or low (0.8g) acceleration perturbations. Response differences were not observed between warned and unwarned presentation of these different perturbations, which suggested that advance knowledge of acceleration amplitude did not affect subject responses. The remaining 30 subjects (15F, 15M) were exposed to seven different perturbations which showed that neck muscle and kinematic responses were graded to both perturbation acceleration and velocity. These experiments demonstrated that subject awareness of an imminent perturbation and habituation of the muscle response to multiple perturbations produced complex changes in the kinematic response, and suggested that neck muscle and kinematic responses of unprepared occupants in real whiplash collisions were different than human subject responses observed in most whiplash injury studies."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/12846?expand=metadata"@en . "9740604 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "THE REFLEX RESPONSE OF HUMAN NECK MUSCLES TO WHIPLASH-LIKE PERTURBATIONS by GUNTER PAUL SIEGMUND B A.Sc. (Hons), University of British Columbia, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Human Kinetics) We accept this thesis as conforming .to, the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 2001 \u00C2\u00A9 Gunter Paul Siegmund, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Most whiplash injuries are sustained in isolated rear-end collisions which occur without warning. Most studies of whiplash injury, however, have used multiple tests of subjects aware of the imminent perturbation. This thesis examined how multiple exposures and subject awareness of the presence, timing and amplitude of a whiplash-like perturbation affected the activation and amplitude of the neck muscle response and the peak kinematic response of the head and torso. In Experiment 1, the malleability of neck muscle reflexes was examined in 20 subjects (9F, 11M) who performed ballistic flexion and rotation head movements in a warned, simple reaction-time protocol. When a loud startling sound (124 dB) replaced the 'go' tone (76 dB), a hypermetric version of the reaction-time movement was evoked at the startle reflex onset latency. This result indicated that a reflex neck muscle response could be altered by mental preparation of a movement. In Experiment 2, 66 seated subjects (35F, 31M) underwent multiple perturbations with a peak forward acceleration of 1.5g. To their first perturbation, subjects who were deceived and unexpectedly perturbed responded differently than subjects given either exact or inexact information regarding perturbation timing. Advance warning of the perturbation appeared to produce anticipatory facilitation of the sensorimotor system mediating the reflex response. Subjects exposed to ten more perturbations exhibited a rapid habituation of their muscle response and complex changes in their kinematic response. Thirty-six of the 66 subjects (20F, 16M) then underwent 72 more perturbations interspersed with high (2.2g) or low (0.8g) acceleration perturbations. Response differences were not observed between warned and unwarned presentation of these different perturbations, which suggested that advance knowledge of acceleration amplitude did not affect subject responses. The remaining 30 subjects (15F, 15M) were exposed to seven different perturbations which showed that neck muscle and kinematic responses were graded to both perturbation acceleration and velocity. These experiments demonstrated that subject awareness of an imminent perturbation and habituation of the muscle response to multiple perturbations produced complex changes in the kinematic response, and suggested that neck muscle and kinematic responses of unprepared occupants in real whiplash collisions were different than human subject responses observed in most whiplash injury studies. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vii List of Figures x Contribution of the Author xiv Preface xv Acknowledgements xvi CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 1.1 An Overview of Whiplash Injury and Biomechanics 1 1.2 Cervical Muscle Response 2 1.3 Overall Goal 5 1.4 Development of the Experiments 5 1.4.1 Experiment 1 - Malleability of a Neck Muscle Reflex 5 1.4.2 Experiment 2 - Perturbation Studies 7 1.5 Testable Hypotheses \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 9 1.5.1 Experiment 1 9 1.5.2 Experiment 2 9 1.6 Statement of Ethics 10 CHAPTER 2 Malleability of Neck Muscle Reflexes 11 2.1 Introduction \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 11 2.2 Methods 12 2.2.1 Subjects 12 2.2.2 Instrumentation 12 2.2.3 Test Procedures 12 2.2.4 Data Reduction 13 2.2.5 Statistical Analysis 15 2.3 Results 16 2.3.1 Kinematic Response 16 2.3.2 EMG Timing 19 2.3.3 EMG Amplitude 19 2.3.4 Habituation 23 iv 2.4 Discussion 23 2.4.1 Muscle Response 25 2.4.2 Kinematic Response 27 2.4.3 Habituation 28 2.5 Bridging Summary 29 CHAPTER 3 Response to the First Perturbation 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 Methods 32 3.2.1 Subjects 32 3.2.2 Instrumentation 33 3.2.3 Test Procedures 35 3.2.4 Data Reduction 36 3.2.5 Statistical Analysis 37 3.3 Results 37 3.3.1 Initial Position 37 3.3.2 Kinematic Response 39 3.3.3 Muscle Response 43 3.4 Discussion 45 3.4.1 Comparison to Previous Studies 48 3.5 Bridging Summary 50 CHAPTER 4 Response Habituation to Multiple Perturbations 51 4.1 Introduction 51 4.2 Methods 52 4.2.1 Subjects 52 4.2.2 Instrumentation 53 4.2.3 Test Procedures 53 4.2.4 Data Reduction 55 4.2.5 Statistical Analysis 56 4.3 Results 57 4.3.1 Initial Position 57 4.3.2 Kinematic Response 59 4.3.3 Muscle Response 66 4.4 Discussion 68 4.4.1 Implications for Whiplash Injury 72 V 4.5 Bridging Summary 74 CHAPTER 5 Awareness of Perturbation Magnitude 76 5.1 Introduction 76 5.2 Methods 77 5.2.1 Subjects 77 5.2.2 Instrumentation 77 5.2.3 Test Procedures 78 5.2.4 Data Reduction 81 5.2.5 Statistical Analysis 82 5.3 Results 83 5.4 Discussion 90 5.5 Bridging Summary 93 CHAPTER 6 Gradation of Response to Perturbation Properties 95 6.1 Introduction 95 6.2 Methods 96 6.2.1 Subjects 96 6.2.2 Instrumentation 97 6.2.3 Description of Perturbations 97 6.2.4 Test Procedures 99 6.2.5 Data Reduction 102 6.2.6 Statistical Analysis 103 6.3 Results 103 6.4 Discussion 110 6.4.1 Kinematic Response 110 6.4.2 Muscle Response 112 6.4.3 Implications for Whiplash Injury 115 CHAPTER 7 General Discussion and Conclusions 118 7.1 Methodology - Advantages and Limitations 120 7.2 Comparison of Awareness and Stimulus Intensity Effects 122 7.3 Neurophysiological Aspects of the Neck Muscle Reflex 123 7.4 Implications for Whiplash Injury Research 124 7.4.1 External Validity of Whiplash Experiments 125 7.4.2 The Aetiology of Whiplash Injury 125 7.5 Conclusions 126 vi Bibliography 128 APPENDIX A Detection of Movement Onset 138 A. 1 Introduction 138 A.2 Mathematical Development 138 A.3 Performance of the Algorithm 141 A.4 Summary 143 APPENDIX B Trial Data for Habituation Experiment 144 APPENDIX C Summary of Data for Perturbation Property Experiment 154 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Summary of data from previous whiplash studies in which muscle activity was measured. Mean (S.D.) given for muscle activation times. Av, velocity change; SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscle; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; M , male; F, Table 2.1 Mean (S.D.) of head kinematics as a function of stimulus and motion direction. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of motion direction (control trials, flexion trials, rotation trials) and stimulus intensity (startle tone, reaction time tone). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics, df= 1,19) of seven separate 2-way repeated-measures ANOVAs using motion direction and stimulus intensity as independent variables. Control data were not used in these analyses. Accel, acceleration; Decel, deceleration; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 0, head angle; max, maximum; CT, control trial; ST, startle trial; RT, reaction time trial 18 Table 2.2 Mean (S.D.) of muscle activation time and normalized EMG amplitude for the sternocleidomastoid and cervical paraspinal muscles. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of muscle (SCM, PARA), side (left, right), motion direction (control trials, flexion trials, rotation trials) and stimulus intensity (startle tone, reaction time tone). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics, df=l,19) of four separate 3-way repeated-measures ANOVAs using muscle side, motion direction and stimulus intensity as independent variables. Control data were not used in these analyses. Each statistical result is centered below its source data. SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscles; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; L, left; R, right; CT, control trial, ST, startle trial; RT, reaction time trial 20 Table 3.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (male, female). Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 2-way ANOVAs using awareness and gender as independent variables. X , horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis 38 Table 3.3 Mean (S.D.) of the peak amplitude of selected kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (male, female). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate ANOVAs for the effect of awareness and gender on each of the peak responses. Individual peaks are labeled with hollow circles in Figure 3.3. N, female; NR, not reported. 3 Table 3.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics 33 number of subjects in analysis 41 Table 3.4 Mean (S.D.) of the time of peak amplitude of selected kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (male, female). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-viii statistics) of separate ANOVAs for the effect of awareness and gender on each of the peak responses. Individual peaks are labeled with hollow circles in Figure 3.3. N, number of subjects in analysis 42 Table 3.5 Mean (S.D.) of EMG onset time, maximum RMS time, and normalized RMS magnitude computed over the interval of retraction motion. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (male, female). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 2-way ANOVAs using awareness and gender as independent variables. RMS, root-mean square; OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal; N, number of subjects in analysis 44 Table 4.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics 53 Table 4.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (unalerted, alerted), gender (male, female) and trial number (1 to 11). Trial data are summarized here for the first trial and the average of the last five trials only. Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 3-way ANOVAs using awareness, gender and trial number as independent variables. The eleven trials were considered separately in the ANOVA. X, horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis; A, awareness; G, gender; T, trial 58 Table 4.3 Mean (S.D.) of the amplitude of selected peaks in the kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (unalerted, alerted), gender (male, female) and trial number (1 to 11). Trial data are summarized here for the first trial and the average of the last five trials only. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 3-way ANOVAs using awareness, gender and trial number as independent variables. The eleven trials were considered separately in the ANOVA. Peaks are labeled with hollow circles in the left panel of Figure 4.3. N, number of subjects in analysis; A, awareness; G, gender; T, trial 63 Table 4.4 Mean (S.D.) of the time of peak amplitude in the kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (unalerted, alerted), gender (male, female) and trial number (1 to 11). Trial data are summarized here for the first trial and the average of the last five trials only. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 3-way ANOVAs using awareness, gender and trial number as independent variables. The eleven trials were considered separately in the ANOVA. Peaks are labeled with hollow circles in the left panel of Figure 4.3. N, number of subjects in analysis; A, awareness; G, gender; T, trial 64 Table 4.5 Mean (S.D.) of EMG onset time and normalized RMS magnitude computed over the interval of retraction motion. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (unalerted, alerted), gender (male, female) and trial number (1 to 11). Trial data are summarized here for the first trial and the average of the last five trials only. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 3-way ANOVAs using awareness, gender and trial number as independent variables. The eleven trials were considered separately in the ANOVA. RMS, root-mean square; OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal; N, number of subjects in analysis; A, awareness; G, gender; T, trial 67 Table 5.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics, 77 Table 5.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation intensity (low, standard, high). Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. There were no significant differences with either warning level or perturbation intensity. X , horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis 84 Table 5.3 Mean (S.D.) of the peak amplitude of selected kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of amplitude awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation pulse intensity (low, standard, high). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of the ANOVAs for the effect of awareness and perturbation intensity on each of the peak responses. Individual peaks are labeled with hollow circles in Figure 5.3. Descriptive statistics are from the actual data and the results of the inferential statistics are from the normalized data. N, number of subjects in analysis 87 Table 5.4 Mean (S.D.) of the time of peak amplitude for selected kinematic data. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of amplitude awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation pulse intensity (low, standard, high). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of the ANOVAs for the effect of awareness and perturbation intensity on each of the peak responses. Individual peaks are labeled with hollow circles in Figure 5.3. Descriptive statistics are from the actual data and the results of the inferential statistics are from the normalized data. N, number of subjects in analysis 88 Table 5.5 Mean (S.D.) of EMG onset time and normalized RMS magnitude computed over the interval of retraction motion. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation pulse intensity (low, standard, high). Lower portion of table summarizes the F-statistics and the results of the ANOVA for awareness and perturbation intensity. Descriptive statistics are from the actual data and the results of the inferential statistics are from the normalized data. RMS, root-mean square; OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal; N, number of subjects in analysis 89 Table 6.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics 97 Table 6.2 Coefficients of determination (r2) for every combination of normalized dependent variable and perturbation pulse parameters. Kinematic amplitudes sorted temporally based on the average time observed in the standard perturbation. The largest r2 for each variable in bold text. An r2=0.02 was significant at the p=0.05 level. Av, velocity change; a, average acceleration; At, pulse duration; aAv, product of average acceleration and velocity change 107 X L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 2.1 Sample EMG recordings from the control, startle and reaction time trials of a single subject. A, EMG recordings from the first control trial. B, EMG recordings from the second control trial, administered between the flexion and rotation blocks. C, EMG recordings from a startle trial in which the subject was ready to perform a ballistic flexion movement. D, EMG recordings from a startle trial in which the subject was ready to perform a ballistic axial rotation movement. E, EMG recordings from a reaction time trial for a flexion movement. F, EMG recordings from a reaction time trial for an axial rotation movement. The vertical bar between the Accel and co traces is equivalent to lg and 5 rad/s. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; Accel, linear head acceleration at the forehead; co, angular velocity of the head. The vertical line through all traces of a single trial indicates the onset of either the GO or startling tone 17 Figure 2.2 Muscle activation times, ratios and differences for the neck muscles of all subjects. A, Mean onset times \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. for the left and right sternocleidomastoid muscles during control, flexion and rotation trials. Note that onset times during control and startle trials were significantly faster than onset times for reaction-time trials. B, Similar to previous panel except for the cervical paraspinal muscles. C, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST onset time to the RT onset time (ST/RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side (L, R) and movement type (flexion, rotation). D, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST and RT onset times (RT-ST) for each muscle as a function of muscle side and movement type. E, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left to right onset latency (L/R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus (ST, RT) and movement type. F, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right onset times (L-R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type 21 Figure 2.3 EMG amplitudes, ratios and differences for the neck muscles of all subjects. A, Mean normalized RMS EMG amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right sternocleidomastoid muscles as a function of stimulus (ST, RT) and movement type (flexion, rotation). B, Similar to previous panel except for the cervical paraspinal muscles. Note the bilateral symmetry during flexion movements and bilateral asymmetry during rotation movements. C, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST amplitude to the RT amplitude (ST/RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side (L, R) and movement type. D, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST and RT amplitudes (ST-RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side and movement type. Note the consistent upward bias present in the startle trials. E, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left to right amplitudes (L/R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type. F, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right amplitudes (L-R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type 22 Figure 2.4 Absence of habituation to startle during sequential trials. A, Mean EMG amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of all muscles over the seven sequential startle trials during the flexion block. The EMG amplitude of each one of the subject's muscles was first expressed as a percentage of amplitude observed in that muscle during the first trial and then xi the mean was calculated. Note the absence of habituation between the first startle trial (the first trial of a block) and the seventh startle trial (the 20th trial within a block). B, Similar to previous panel, but for rotation movements. C, Mean amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of similarly normalized angular head kinematics. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; a, head angular acceleration; to, head angular velocity; 0, head angle 24 Figure 3.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the forehead reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between 12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame 34 Figure 3.2 Sample acceleration pulse and descriptive statistics of selected pulse properties 34 Figure 3.3 Sample EMG and kinematic data from a single subject. Labeled hollow circles indicate kinematic peaks used in the analysis. The vertical scale bars are aligned with the onset of the perturbation and are equivalent to lg, 25 mm, 100 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 10 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x refers to the x-direction; subscript z refers to the z-direction; a, head angular acceleration; 0 ) , head angular velocity; 9, head angle 40 Figure 3.4 Summary of awareness-related differences (mean \u00C2\u00B1 SD) that, when combined, suggested a mechanism explaining why female subjects responded differently in surprised conditions. See text for a complete description. SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscles; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; RMS, root mean square; F, female; M, male; S, surprised; U, unalerted; A, alerted 46 Figure 4.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the head reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between 12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame 54 Figure 4.2 Sample acceleration pulse and descriptive statistics of selected pulse properties 54 Figure 4.3 Sample data from the first, third and eleventh trial of a single subject who exhibited habituation of their muscle response and corresponding changes in their kinematic response. Labeled hollow circles in the first trial represent kinematic peaks used for subsequent analysis. Similarly-located circles in the other trials highlight changes due to habituation. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to lg, 25 mm, 100 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 10 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 0, head angle 60 Figure 4.4 Head angle (left) and retraction (right) data for trials 1 (top) through 11 (bottom) of a subject who adopted a different response strategy. The data indicated that the subject did not attempt to immediately re-establish an upright head position after t xii the perturbation. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to 10 deg and 10 mm 61 Figure 4.5 Mean (S.D.) of some normalized dependent variables over the eleven exposures. Subject data were normalized to the peak amplitude or the time of peak amplitude observed in their first trial before the normalized means (S.D.) depicted in this figure were calculated. Interactions with gender and awareness level shown where the effect was significant. Hollow markers indicate trials significantly different from the first trial. Number at right indicates the percentage change of the last 5 trials relative to the first trial. F, female; M , male; A, alerted; U, unalerted 65 Figure 5.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the head reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between 12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame 79 Figure 5.2 Acceleration vs. time graphs (top) for each sled acceleration (low L a , standard M a , and high Ha) and descriptive statistics for the average acceleration (a), pulse duration (At), peak acceleration (ap) and time of peak acceleration (tp). Superimposed velocity vs. time plots (bottom) of the three perturbation pulses. The dark line depicts the standard perturbation 80 Figure 5.3 Sample data from a low acceleration (La), standard acceleration (Ma) and high acceleration (Ha) perturbation for a single subject. Labeled hollow circles in the left panel represent kinematic peaks used for subsequent analyses. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to lg, 50 mm, 200 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 20 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 0, head angle 85 Figure 5.4 Mean and standard deviation of selected normalized electromyographic and kinematic amplitude data for two standard perturbations (Ma) either side the two test stimuli - a low acceleration (La) shown on the left half of each graph (\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 alerted, O unalerted), and a high acceleration (Ha) shown on the right half of each graph (\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 alerted, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 unalerted). -2 and -1 are the penultimate and ultimate trials preceding the test stimulus, and +1 and +2 are the first and second trials immediately following the test stimulus. L and H values which are significantly different from the standard perturbation are indicated by asterisks: **** p<0.0001 86 Figure 6.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the head reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between +12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame. The sensitive axis of the torso accelerometer was also determined by a subject's body shape and varied between +30 \u00C2\u00B1 5 deg relative to the lab reference frame 98 Figure 6.2 Matrix of sled pulses and descriptive statistics. Acceleration vs. time graphs (top) for each combination of sled velocity (low Lv, medium M v, and high Hv) and xiii acceleration (low La, medium M a, and high Ha). Descriptive statistics (bottom) for the velocity change (Av), average acceleration (a), pulse duration (At), peak acceleration (ap) and time of peak (tp) corresponding to each of the seven pulses. The standard pulse (Mv, Ma), in the dashed box, was used for the initial eleven practice trials 100 Figure 6.3 Superimposed velocity v. time plots for each of the seven perturbation pulses. The dark line depicts the standard perturbation (MaMv) 101 Figure 6.4 The relationship between average acceleration and velocity change for an idealized square wave perturbation pulse. The dashed lines radiating from the origin depict lines of constant pulse duration and the solid hyperbolic curves depict lines along which the product of acceleration and velocity is constant. The dark markers represent the seven pulses used in this experiment. Because actual pulses were not square waves, the peak velocity (plotted here) was larger than the actual velocity change. Units of time are milliseconds and units of the acceleration and velocity are m2s\"3 101 Figure 6.5 Sample data from a low velocity, low acceleration (LvLa), medium velocity, medium acceleration (MvMa), and high velocity, high acceleration (HvHa) perturbation for a single subject. Labeled hollow circles in the left panel represent kinematic peaks were used for subsequent analyses. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and equal to lg, 50 mm, 200 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 20 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; m, torso acceleration; rx, retraction; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 9, head angle 104 Figure 6.6 Mean and standard deviation of normalized electromyographic amplitude and peak kinematics as a function of perturbation pulse parameters. The borders encircle amplitudes which are not significantly different from each other according to a post-hoc Scheffe test on the normalized data. Increasing line weight corresponds to increasing amplitude. Note that larger amplitudes are consistently in the top right and lower amplitudes are consistently in the bottom left of each table 106 Figure 6.7 A plot of the coefficients of determination (r2) produced by linear regression analyses between each of the dependent variables and the perturbation pulse parameters (acceleration, velocity change, duration, and product of acceleration and velocity) as a function of the time at which the corresponding peak amplitude occurred relative to the onset of the perturbation. Straight lines are least-squares best fit lines through the data 108 Figure 6.8 Mean and standard deviation of electromyographic onset times and the time of selected peak kinematics as a function of perturbation pulse parameters. The borders encircle times which are not significantly different from each other according to a post-hoc Scheffe test on the normalized data. Increasing line weight corresponds to increasingly early times 109 xiv CONTRIBUTION OF THE AUTHOR This thesis contains two experiments that have been undertaken by the candidate, Gunter P. Siegmund, under the supervision of David J. Sanderson (Associate Professor, School of Human Kinetics). The conduct, analysis and documentation of each experiment was primarily the work of the candidate. The above statement was written by Gunter P. Siegmund and agreed upon by the undersigned. David J. Sanderson, Ph.D. References Siegmund, G.P., Inglis, J.T., & Sanderson, D.J. (2001). Startle response of human neck muscles sculpted by readiness to perform ballistic head movements. Journal of Physiology, 535.1, 289-300. Siegmund, G.P., Sanderson, D.J., Myers, B.S., & Inglis, J.T. (in review). Awareness affects the responses of human subjects exposed to a single whiplash-like perturbation. Submitted to Spine, July 3, 2001. Siegmund, G.P., Sanderson, D.J., Myers, B.S., & Inglis, J.T. (in review). Rapid adaptation of human subject responses to multiple whiplash-like perturbations. Submitted to Spine, July 27, 2001. Siegmund, G.P., Sanderson, D.J., & Inglis, J.T. (in review). The influence of perturbation amplitude awareness on the reflex neck muscle response of seated subjects. Submitted to Experimental Brain Research, July 3, 2001. Siegmund, G.P., Sanderson, D.J., & Inglis, J.T. (in review). Gradation of the reflex neck muscle response to perturbation acceleration and velocity in seated subjects. Submitted to Journal of Neurophysiology, July 3, 2001. XV PREFACE This thesis consists of two experiments. The first experiment was designed to address two related questions and was written up as a single study (Chapter 2). The second experiment was designed to address four separate questions and was therefore written up as four separate studies (Chapters 3 through 6). To assist in the future publication of these studies, each chapter contains a complete introduction, methods, results and discussion relevant to that chapter. Chapter 2 was written for and has been accepted by the Journal of Physiology. Chapters 3 and 4 have been written for journals focused on the biomechanics of whiplash injury, and Chapters 5 and 6 have been written for neurophysiology journals. A consequence of this format was some repetition of material, particularly of the Instrumentation and Data Reduction sections within the Methods of each chapter, and a minor loss of fluidity between chapters. To smooth the transition between chapters, bridging summaries have been added to the end of Chapters 2 through 5. The final Discussion in Chapter 7 was then focused on an overall interpretation of the results and how the combined results of these different experiments affected the study of whiplash injury and our understanding of the aetiology of whiplash injury. xvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank a number of individuals and organizations for their support of my graduate studentship and my thesis research. Considerable thanks are due to my thesis advisor, Dr. David J. Sanderson. He deftly provided the right balance of questions and answers to create an optimal learning environment. In addition to many other things, he has taught me that I still have much to learn. I also wish to thank Dr. J. Timothy Inglis for encouraging me to understand the neurophysiological implications of my work and Dr. Barry S. Myers for ensuring that my work remained soundly rooted in engineering mechanics. It is hard to imagine a better thesis committee than one composed of these three individuals. My doctoral experience would not have been possible without the financial support and encouragement of my fellow partners at Maclnnis Engineering Associates. Thank you for allowing me the time and flexibility to pursue a dream. Thank you to Mr. Jeff Nickel and Mr. Mircea Oala-Florescu of Maclnnis Engineering Associates for designing and constructing the sled used for these experiments. Thank you also to Dr. J. Timothy Inglis for the use of his EMG recording system and to Dr. Romeo Chua for the use of his Optotrak system. Volunteer fees for Experiment 1 were paid from a grant to Dr. J. Timothy Inglis by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Partial funding for Experiments 2 through 5 was provided by a Woodbridge Grant awarded by the Physical Medicine Research Foundation, Vancouver, BC. I would also like to acknowledge the Post-Graduate Scholarship (PGS) program offered by (NSERC) and the Graduate Research Engineering and Technology (GREAT) scholarship program offered by the Science Council of British Columbia (SCBC) for their support throughout my tenure as a doctoral student. I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife Louise and our children Emma and Hannah. Without their steadfast support and generous patience, this selfish endeavor would not have been possible. Thank you. 1 C H A P T E R 1 INTRODUCTION Little is known about the aetiology of whiplash injury. Biomechanical investigations into whiplash injury have used various models, including human subjects, cadavers, physical models and mathematical models, to attempt to better understand the dynamic response and ultimately the distribution of tissue loading in whiplash-injured individuals. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. Human subject data have included a muscle response not present in cadavers, and both physical and mathematical models have relied on human subject data for validation. Human subject data, however, also have limitations. In addition to necessarily remaining below a severity which causes lasting injury, the external validity of the laboratory response to a simulated rear-end collision remains a question. External validity is the extent to which the results of a study can be applied or generalized to the actual population under study (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). A real whiplash-producing collision consists of a single perturbation, often with little or no warning. Laboratory experiments, on the other hand, have often consisted of multiple perturbations and have used subjects who were aware, to varying degrees, of the timing, amplitude and indeed the presence of an imminent whiplash-like perturbation. For the purposes of this thesis, these three different levels of awareness have been called temporal awareness, amplitude awareness and event awareness respectively. In this context, the overall goal of this thesis was to improve our understanding of the role that multiple exposures and information regarding the timing, amplitude and presence of a whiplash-like perturbation have on the response of human subjects in a laboratory setting. 1.1 An Overview of Whiplash Injury and Biomechanics Whiplash injury presents with a palette of symptoms which include neck and back pain, headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, paraesthesias, and cognitive difficulties (Bogduk, 1986; Evans, 1992). The injured tissues responsible for chronic whiplash symptoms have been the subject of much speculation and, to date, only one controlled clinical study designed to anatomically isolate the injured tissue has been carried out. Using a double blind, placebo-controlled study, Lord et al. (1996) showed that the cervical facet joints were the source of neck pain in 60 percent of a population with chronic pain secondary to whiplash injury. Transient symptoms lasting less than one week have been attributed to muscle injury (Bogduk, 1986; Brault et al., 2000). Most whiplash injuries have occurred in rear-end collisions in which the injured party's vehicle was struck at the rear and accelerated forward (Jakobsson et al., 2000). In keeping with this observation, the whiplash-like perturbations used in this thesis consisted of horizontal forward accelerations applied to subjects seated in an automobile seat. Numerous human subject studies have 2 shown that during a low-speed rear-end impact, the pelvis of a forward-facing, normally-seated occupant is accelerated forward first. Because of seat back compliance and occupant posture, acceleration of the upper torso lags acceleration of the pelvis. As the forward translation of the torso relative to the initially stationary head increases, the lower vertebrae of the cervical spine extend and the upper vertebrae flex. Shear forces developed at the top of the cervical spine ultimately accelerate the base of the skull forward and set up a rearward rotation (extension) of the head. In the presence of a head restraint, both the head extension and the horizontal translation between the torso and head (called retraction) are arrested by the combination of an external force applied to the head by the head restraint and internal forces developed in the ligamentous cervical spine and cervical muscles. If no head restraint is present, larger extension and retraction motions occur before the head motion is arrested by internal forces alone. 1.2 Cervical Muscle Response The neck muscles have been shown to activate early in the dynamic response of subjects exposed to whiplash-like perturbations (Table 1.1). Aside from one study, the mean activation times of the sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) were less than previously-reported voluntary activation times to a somatosensory stimulus (117 \u00C2\u00B1 16 ms) and an acoustic stimulus (107 \u00C2\u00B121 ms) (Mazzini and Schieppati, 1992). The amplitude of the muscle response evoked by a whiplash-like perturbation has also been shown to increase with perturbation intensity (Brault et al., 2000). Taken together, the pre-voluntary activation times and the graded nature of the neck muscle response to perturbation intensity are indicative of a reflexive response (Gordon and Ghez, 1991). Though consistent activation times have been observed, activation itself has not been consistently reported in all studies of whiplash biomechanics. Two studies listed in Table 1.1 reported low or no cervical paraspinal muscle (PARA) response (Gutierrez, 1978; Ono et al., 1997). In both studies, subjects were exposed to multiple trials, and as a result of the study design, subjects in both studies knew when impact would occur. In contrast to these findings, Brault et al. (2000) observed a clear SCM and PARA muscle response in novice subjects exposed to only two unexpected perturbations spaced a week or more apart. These differing results suggested that multiple sequential exposures or information regarding the timing of a perturbation (temporal awareness), or a combination of both, may have affected the reflex response of the posterior neck muscles in the earlier two studies. These explanations were consistent with well-documented phenomena related to reflex muscle responses: habituation and central set. Habituation has been defined as a centrally generated decrement in response magnitude to repetitive stimulation (Harris, 1943). It typically consists of a rapid initial decrement which becomes 3 progressively slower with time and exposure repetitions. Rapid habituation has been observed in postural reflexes (Nashner, 1976; Hansen et al., 1988; Woollacott et al., 1988; Allum et al., 1992; Bisdorff et al., 1994; Timmann and Horak, 1997) and startle reflexes in humans (Davis, 1984). In free-fall experiments of supine subjects, the magnitude of the electromyographic (EMG) signals was reduced by 30 to 50 percent by the third exposure (Bisdorff et al., 1994). Although habituation produces a decrement in response, not all components of a response are necessarily reduced by the same amount. Habituation of the startle reflex has been shown to occur more readily in the extensor muscles, leaving primarily a flexor muscle response after habituation (Davis,' 1984). Moreover, complete elimination of reflex activation in antagonist muscles has been observed during repeated postural perturbations (Woollacott et al., 1988). This extreme form of habituation may be consistent with the absence of an extensor muscle response observed in subjects exposed to multiple whiplash-like perturbations (Gutierrez, 1978; Ono et al., 1997). In recognition of habituation, many studies of reflex responses have used practice trials to achieve a stable response in their subjects before beginning data collection. Table 1.1. Summary of data from previous whiplash studies in which muscle activity was measured. Mean (S.D.) given for muscle activation times. Av, velocity change; SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscle; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; M , male; F, female; NR, not reported. Subjects Perturbation properties Muscle activation times Study Gender Age Av Duration SCM PARA (M/F) (yrs) (km/h) (ms) (ms) (ms) Gutierrez (1978) 3/0 22-29 6.6 80-87 68(12)' NR Ono et al. (1997) 3/0 242 ~63 ~1404 79 (9) NR Szabo and Welcher (1996) 4/1 22-54 7.5-10.0 80-904 118(11) 117(11) Meyer et al. (1998) 2/0 -30 5.5-9.0 75-160 725 725 Castro etal. (1997) 14/5 26-47 8.7-14.2 105-1696 NR 615 Pope et al. (1998) 10/0 18-25 NR NR -100 -100 Magnusson et al. (1999) 8/0 24-56 ~27 -250-300 73 (15) 175 (67)8 Brault et al. (2000) 21/21 20-40 4 138 (4) 91(9) 96(11) Brault et al. (2000) 20/19 20-40 8 135 (2) 81(8) 84 (9) 1. From onset of sled acceleration as estimated from graphs of all data in appendix. 2. Mean age of all 12 subjects in entire experiment. 3. Impact speed, rebound not known and therefore speed change not known. 4. Estimated from sample data in figures. 5. Relative to onset of vehicle acceleration. 6. From partial results reported by Meyer et al. (1998). 7. Estimated from sample acceleration pulse; acceleration pulse was biphasic. 8. Onset for splenius capitus from wire electrodes. 4 Another well-documented feature of postural perturbations is the development of a preparatory state called central set (Nashner, 1976; Horak et al., 1989). Central set is an a priori selection of the appropriate pattern and magnitude of a muscle response to a stimulus based on prior experience and the expectation that the next stimulus will be of a similar magnitude. Whereas habituation refers to a non-specific decrement in response magnitude, central set refers to a tuning process that may increase or decrease the response of a muscle based on prior experience (Timmann and Horak, 1997). Central set has been observed to develop under conditions where muscles were reflexively activated before complete information regarding the intensity of the stimulus was available; it has not been observed when the stimulus information needed to grade the muscle response was available prior to activation (Horak et al., 1989). Central set is therefore a predictive phenomenon. Since muscle activation has been shown to precede the end of the perturbation in some whiplash exposures (Brault et al., 2000), it is possible that awareness of the perturbation amplitude, i.e., amplitude awareness, has been used by subjects in some experiments to tune their muscle response during sequential exposures to similar intensity perturbations. Though perturbation amplitude has been varied in many previous whiplash experiments using human subjects, the effect of amplitude awareness on the response of subjects to whiplash-like perturbations has not been previously studied. Both habituation and central set require multiple exposures to a stimulus to develop. Collisions which result in whiplash injuries, however, are frequently one-time events which occur without warning (Sturzenegger et al., 1994). Therefore, it is the first, unhabituated response of a surprised individual to a whiplash-like perturbation that should be studied to understand a large proportion of whiplash injuries. Based on this criterion, none of the studies listed in Table 1 actually replicated real rear-end collisions in which occupants are surprised by the collision. Even if not aware of the exact timing of a perturbation, i.e., not temporally aware, these subjects still knew that some form of perturbation would occur, i.e., they were event aware. Based on epidemiological data, this difference in event awareness between laboratory tests of whiplash biomechanics and real collisions may be important. Unprepared occupants have reported a higher frequency of multiple symptoms and more severe headaches than prepared occupants (Sturzenegger et al., 1994). Moreover, individuals reporting multiple initial signs and symptoms after a whiplash-producing collision were more prone to develop a chronic injury (Suissa, 2001). Sturzenegger et al. (1994) hypothesized that the muscle response was likely the primary variable which differed between surprised and prepared subjects, but did not propose a mechanism by which awareness of the impending collision might reduce the frequency and intensity of symptoms. A difference in muscle response was also a distinguishing feature between the results of 5 whiplash experiments conducted on novice subjects who were not temporally aware (Brault et al., 2000) and whiplash experiments conducted on experienced subjects who were temporally aware (Ono et al., 1997). This difference in the muscle response observed under two different experimental protocols raises questions regarding both the role of awareness in the response of human subjects exposed to whiplash-like perturbations and the role that multiple exposures play in producing habituated responses that might not be representative of responses in real collisions. To date, there have been no systematic biomechanical investigations of the effect of either subject awareness or habituation on the muscle and kinematic responses produced during whiplash-like perturbations. An understanding of how these phenomena affect both the cervical muscle response and the induced kinematics during whiplash-like perturbations will help to define how to better study whiplash injury in the laboratory, will assist in interpreting the external validity of previous whiplash experiments using human subjects, and may provide insight into the aetiology of whiplash injury. 1.3 Overall Goal The overall goal of this thesis was to answer the following question: Do awareness and habituation alter the muscle and kinematic responses of human subjects exposed to whiplash-like perturbations? Three elements of awareness were considered: i) temporal awareness, defined as information regarding the timing of a stimulus; ii) amplitude awareness, defined as information regarding the intensity of the stimulus; and iii) event awareness, defined as information regarding the presence of the stimulus. 1.4 Development of the Experiments 1.4.1 Experiment 1 - Malleability of a Neck Muscle Reflex The research question posed above assumes that a degree of malleability exists in the reflex response of the human cervical muscles. It further assumes that a subject aware of an imminent perturbation could exploit this malleability, either consciously or unconsciously, to alter their reflexive neck muscle response. If such readiness is able to alter the muscle activation, then information regarding the magnitude of that alteration and how it changes over multiple sequential trials is important. If, on the other hand, such readiness is unable to alter the muscle activation, then questions regarding the role of awareness might, at best, require a different framework or, at worst, be moot. The first part of this investigation was therefore to quantify the degree of malleability available in the reflex response of the cervical muscles. Valls-Sole et al. (1997, 1999) recently examined how the motor readiness present immediately before a ballistic reaction time movement 6 altered the startle reflex in distal upper and lower limb muscles. To examine this phenomenon, the \"go\" stimulus they used during a forewarned, simple reaction-time task was occasionally replaced with a loud sound capable of producing an acoustic startle reflex. Their data showed that the movement prepared for the reaction-time trial was preserved during the startled trials, but that the muscle onset latency was shortened to that of the acoustic startle reflex (Valls-Sole et al., 1999). Although a quantitative analysis of the muscle response magnitude was not performed, their qualitative analysis indicated that there was no difference in magnitude between the startle-induced motor response and the voluntary motor response. Therefore, the normal startle response in the distal limb muscles appeared to be extinguished by a subject's readiness to execute a movement and replaced by the muscle response prepared for the reaction-time task. An important component of the study conducted by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) was the level of readiness that existed in subjects between the warning and go stimuli. Although a similarly heightened state of readiness may not be present in subjects about to undergo a whiplash-like perturbation, the heightened level of readiness present in advance of a ballistic reaction-time task provides an opportunity to study the maximal effect that readiness might have on the cervical muscle response. The results reported by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) implied that mental preparation of a motor response in advance of a whiplash-like perturbation could have a profound effect on the muscle response evoked by the perturbation if subjects used their awareness of the perturbation timing to ready such a response. Unfortunately, the results reported by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) in distal limb muscles cannot be directly extrapolated to the cervical muscles. The cervical muscles, particularly the SCM muscle, have been shown to respond more strongly to an acoustic startle stimulus than do limb muscles (Brown et al., 1991a; Vidailhet et al., 1992) and it was not clear how this stronger connection would interact with subject readiness (Hypothesis lAj.'It was also not known whether the startle-triggered movement reported by Valls-Sole et al (1999) was the result of readiness to perform the movement or whether the practice acquired during the numerous reaction-time trials preceding the startled trials also played a role. If a normal reflex response could only be altered by a previously-practiced movement, then the first few responses of a subject exposed to a whiplash-like perturbation might be representative of real exposures for a limited number of initial perturbations (Hypothesis IB). Based on these unresolved issues, Experiment 1 was designed to test whether motor readiness could alter the reflex response of the neck muscles and whether this phenomenon was present in the first trial prior to practicing the movement. To answer this question, a whiplash perturbation was a less suitable stimulus than the acoustic startle used by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) because it superimposed a relatively large perturbation-induced movement onto the movement generated by the muscle response. Isolating 7 the movement related to the muscle response from the overall movement would be difficult. To eliminate this problem, an acoustic stimulus rather than a whiplash-like perturbation was used to evoke the neck muscle reflex for Experiment 1. 1.4.2 Experiment 2 - Perturbation Studies Establishing that motor readiness could alter the neck muscle reflex without prior practice did not mean that subjects actually readied a motor response in advance of whiplash-like perturbations. Magnusson et al. (1999) observed no difference in the onset, duration or amplitude of the cervical muscle response between seated subjects who were given a countdown to a perturbation (alerted) and subjects who underwent randomly-spaced perturbations (unalerted). Kumar et al. (2000), oh the other hand, reported that the peak head acceleration of subjects aware of the time and intensity of an impending horizontal perturbation was about half as large as the peak head acceleration of subjects who were not aware of the exact time or intensity of the perturbation. In a recently published abstract containing muscle response data from the same experiment, Kumar et al. (2001) reported that awareness of the perturbation significantly affected the onset and amplitude of the EMG signal of various neck muscles. Unfortunately, these authors did not describe the nature of the relationship between awareness and the muscle response. Based on their previously reported kinematic response, however, it was presumed that awareness of the time and intensity of the perturbation reduced the muscle response. Although the apparently contradictory findings of the two research groups cited above warrant additional investigation, further work was also needed to eliminate the potentially confounding effects of habituation and to study a more realistic level of awareness. Both research groups used repeated exposures to study the effect of awareness and did not report whether their subjects were habituated to the perturbation prior to acquiring their data. Including both habituated and unhabituated responses may have confounded their analyses of awareness. In addition, both Magnusson et al. (1999) and Kumar et al. (2000) only studied the effect of temporal awareness on the response of their subjects to whiplash-like perturbations. Neither group studied the effect of event awareness. Neither the alerted nor unalerted conditions studied by these two groups of researchers may have been representative of many real whiplash exposures - even during their subjects' first exposures. The intensity of the first reflexive muscle response under surprised conditions may be different from the first reflexive muscle response elicited in subjects aware of the presence of an imminent perturbation, whether or not they know its exact timing (Hypothesis 2A). To examine the effect of event awareness on the response to whiplash-like perturbations, deception was used in the current experiments to create a pre-perturbation awareness level closer to the surprised condition 8 present during most real collisions. Most whiplash experiments employing human subject have used multiple exposures to similar stimuli. If the free-fall experiments of Bisdorff et al. (1994) are an indication, rapid habituation of the muscle response likely occurred as a result of these multiple exposures. Although motor readiness, similar to that being studied in Experiment 1, has been shown to reduce habituation (Valls-Sole et al., 1997), the degree of habituation to multiple, seated, horizontal perturbations and the degree to which habituation is affected by temporal awareness has not yet been quantified (Hypothesis 2B). Since the deception used to generate the surprised response in the first trial could not be repeated, habituation could only be studied in the alerted and unalerted subjects. Information regarding the habituation pattern will help to identify which human subject experiments should be used to validate future whiplash injury models and which might be less suitable. Furthermore, a better understanding of habituation to whiplash-like perturbations could provide a basis to limit the number of exposures per subject in future human subject testing. The first two hypotheses of Experiment 2 were focused on event and temporal awareness, however, awareness of the perturbation amplitude might also affect a subject's response. Based on the experimental design used by Kumar et al. (2000), it was not possible to discern whether their reported awareness effect was due to temporal awareness or amplitude awareness. Therefore, it remains unknown whether subjects use information regarding the intensity of a perturbation to alter their muscle response (Hypothesis 2C). Unlike temporal awareness, amplitude awareness could not be studied in tandem with event awareness. Subjects could be misled regarding the amplitude of a perturbation, however, the information conveyed in the act of this deception eliminated the surprise needed to simultaneously study event awareness. Moreover, deception regarding the perturbation amplitude assumed that subjects had a baseline reference against which to compare their next perturbation. This baseline does not exist in subjects not previously exposed to a perturbation. To overcome these problems, the effect of amplitude awareness was only studied in subjects who had habituated to a baseline perturbation condition. Al l of the preceding hypotheses have focused on whether subjects, based on their level of advance knowledge, could potentially alter the amplitude of their neck muscle reflex response and thereby alter the amplitude of the induced kinematic response. To put these kinematic changes into context, the variation in these same responses with stimulus magnitude was also examined. Some information regarding the stimulus-response relationship would be generated by the different levels of perturbation intensity used in the experiment to test Hypothesis 2C. More than one component of the perturbation kinematics, however, may affect the response. Recent evidence has shown that the amplitude of the induced kinematics during whiplash-like perturbations varies with both the 9 acceleration and velocity change of the perturbation (Bostrom et al., 2000, Siegmund and Heinrichs, 2001). These latter experiments were conducted using a BioRID II crash test dummy specifically designed for whiplash testing and therefore provided no information regarding the effect of acceleration and velocity change on the reflex muscle response. To date, the question of whether the neck muscle reflex response is graded to perturbation velocity or acceleration has not been quantified (Hypothesis 2D). 1.5 Testable Hypotheses The proposed research seeks to determine how awareness and habituation affect the muscle and kinematic responses evoked by whiplash-like perturbations. Based on the rationale presented above, two experiments consisting of six hypotheses were performed. The hypotheses which were tested in each experiment are outlined below: 1.5.1 Experiment 1 IA) The cervical muscle response evoked by an acoustically startling stimulus is different in relaxed subjects than in subjects ready to execute a rapid head movement. IB) The cervical muscle response evoked by an acoustically startling stimulus can be altered by readiness to perform a rapid head movement without that movement being practiced. 1.5.2 Experiment 2 2A) The neck muscle and peak kinematic responses of subjects exposed to a whiplash-like perturbation are different in alerted, unalerted, and surprised conditions. 2B) The neck muscle response of alerted and unalerted subjects habituates to multiple sequential whiplash-like perturbations. 2C) Prior knowledge of the intensity of a perturbation affects the neck muscle response to that perturbation. 2D) The neck muscle response is graded to both the acceleration and velocity change of a whiplash-like perturbation. Both hypotheses of Experiment 1 were combined and are reported in Chapter 2. Hypotheses 2A through 2D were treated as separate experiments and are reported in Chapters 3 through 6 respectively. 10 1.6 Statement of Ethics All of the experiments documented in this thesis were conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the University of British Columbia. 11 C H A P T E R 2 MALLEABILITY OF NECK MUSCLE REFLEXES 2.1 Introduction Loud acoustic stimuli produce an involuntary muscle response known as the startle reflex (Landis and Hunt, 1939). Startling stimuli can generate a whole-body reflex response, however the response rapidly habituates in distal muscles and is often reduced to only an eye blink after relatively few stimuli (Landis and Hunt, 1939; Davis, 1984). Interestingly, recent studies have shown that readiness to execute a voluntary movement facilitates the startle reflex and reduces habituation in the muscles used for the voluntary movement (Valls-Sole et al., 1995; Valls-Sole et al., 1997). This phenomenon of reduced habituation in the presence of motor readiness was recently used to study ballistic movements in the upper and lower limbs (Valls-Sole et al., 1999). These authors reported that an acoustic startle-inducing stimulus superimposed on a visual GO stimulus produced the same muscle response pattern observed in reaction-time (RT) trials, but with an onset of electromyographic (EMG) activity advanced to that of the startle reflex response. These researchers reported that the muscle response observed during startled movement trials was not simply the summation of a normal startle response and a temporally-normal voluntary reaction-time muscle response. Valls-Sole et al. (1999) also reported no extra EMG activity in the distal limb muscles during startled movement trials - an observation that suggested the muscle response during these trials was also not the sum of a normal startle and a temporally-advanced reaction-time response. Based on these findings, Valls-Sole et al. (1999) proposed that the startling stimulus had released a pre-programmed movement stored in subcortical structures. This proposal of a pre-programmed movement triggered by a startle did not, however, explain what became of the descending startle volley. Since the startle-only responses in the distal limb muscles studied by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) were relatively small, it was possible that the addition of a normal startle response to an accelerated voluntary muscle response was too small to detect. The primary goal of the present experiment was to study further the potential summation of a startle response and a temporally advanced voluntary muscle response using the larger and more robust startle response of neck muscles (Brown et al., 1991a; Vidailhet et al., 1992). Ballistic, self-terminated head movements in flexion and axial rotation were used to examine two combinations of muscle synergies between the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) and cervical paraspinal (PARA) muscles. It was hypothesized that the amplitude of the neck muscle response would be larger during startled movement trials and that the relationship between the startled movement responses and the reaction-time responses would provide the information needed to determine whether the startle-induced 12 response consisted of only the triggered voluntary movement or whether it was some combination of a startle reflex and.a temporally-advanced movement. A preliminary report of this study has been previously published in abstract form (Siegmund et al., 2000a). 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Subjects Twenty healthy subjects (9 F, 11 M) between 18 and 35 years old participated in the experiment. Al l subjects gave their informed consent and were paid a nominal amount for their participation. The use of human subjects for this experiment was approved by the university's Ethics Review Board and the study conformed with the Declaration of Helsinki. 2.2.2 Instrumentation Electromyographic (EMG) activity in the orbicularis oculi (OO), masseter (MAS), sternocleidomastoid (SCM) and cervical paraspinal (PARA) muscles was recorded bilaterally using 10 mm pre-gelled surface electrodes (H59P, Kendall-LTP, Huntington Beach, CA) and an Octopus AMT-8 amplifier (Bortec, Calgary, AB). Two uniaxial accelerometers (Kistler 8302B20S1; \u00C2\u00B120g, Amherst, NY) and a single uniaxial angular rate sensor (ATA Sensors ARS-04E; \u00C2\u00B1100 rad/s, Albuquerque, NM) were positioned at the subject's forehead. The sensitive axis of one accelerometer was oriented vertically to measure head acceleration during flexion movements and the sensitive axis of the other accelerometer was oriented mediolaterally to measure head acceleration during axial rotation movements. The angular rate sensor was reoriented appropriately between the blocked movement trials to capture both flexion and axial rotation movements. High gains (overall sensitivity of 2.9V/g) were used for the accelerometers to improve detection of movement onset (Corcos et al., 1993). These gains resulted in peak acceleration data being clipped, however, these data were used only for onset detection. A force transducer (Artech S-Beam SS20210, \u00C2\u00B12 kN, Riverside, CA) was used to measure reaction loads during normalizing contractions of the SCM and PARA muscles. EMG signals were bandpass filtered at 10 Hz to 1 kHz and transducer signals were low-pass filtered at 1 kHz before being simultaneously sampled at 2 kHz and stored for subsequent analysis. Auditory signal magnitude was measured using a Cirrus Research CR252 sound level meter (Hunmanby, North Yorkshire, UK) at a location which coincided with the midpoint of the subjects' ears. 2.2.3 Test Procedures Seated subjects underwent two blocks of 20 trials in which they were instructed to react as rapidly as possible to an auditory GO stimulus (76 dB, 1000 Hz, 40 ms duration) by performing a 13 ballistic head movement. In one block of trials, subjects flexed their head and neck forward from a neutral head position; in the other block of trials, subjects axially rotated their head to the right from a neutral head position. Half the subjects underwent flexion trials first; the other half underwent rotation trials first. The GO stimulus was preceded by an identical warning tone at randomly-varying foreperiods uniformly-distributed between 1.5 and 3.5 seconds. The time between trials was 15 seconds and a rest period of about 3 minutes was used between blocks. Subjects received qualitative verbal feedback and enthusiastic encouragement between trials. Subjects were not permitted to practice either motion prior to the experiment. Immediately preceding a block of trials, the experimenter described and demonstrated the desired movement to the subject and then passively moved the subject's head from the neutral position to an approximate endpoint and back to the neutral position. Subjects were then instructed to visualize and practice the movement mentally without actually moving. Targets were provided to assist the subjects with moving through about 45 degrees of head rotation, although subjects were instructed to focus on rapidly initiating and executing the prescribed movement rather than on endpoint repeatability. On trials 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 20 of each block, the GO stimulus was replaced by a startle-inducing stimulus (124dB, 1000 Hz, 40 ms). The warning tone was unaltered. Trials in which the subject received the GO stimulus were designated reaction time trials (RT trials) and trials in which the startling stimulus replaced the GO stimulus were designated startled movement trials (ST trials). In addition to the two blocks of twenty trials for each movement, three startle-only control trials (CT trials) were administered: one before, one between and one after the two blocks of movement trials. For the startle-only control trials, subjects were relaxed, i.e., not ready to move, and the startling stimuli were presented without warning stimuli. After completion of the above protocol, seated subjects performed sub-maximal isometric contractions in flexion and extension to generate normalizing data for the SCM and PARA muscles respectively. A strap attached to the load cell was placed around a subject's head and its length adjusted to ensure the subject's head was neutrally positioned. The strap was located immediately above the glabella for flexion contractions and at the height of the external occipital protuberance for extension contractions. Subjects were instructed to generate a force of 25 N with visual feedback, first in flexion and then in extension. EMG and load cell data were acquired for 5 s during each contraction. 2.2.4 Data Reduction The onset of head movement was determined directly from the accelerometer data using the algorithm developed in Appendix A. Peak angular velocity ((JCW) of the movement was determined 14 directly from the angular rate sensor data after the raw data had been digitally compensated to reduce the sensor's high-pass frequency to 0.002 Hz (Laughlin, 1998). Angular acceleration was computed by finite differences (5 ms window) from the compensated angular velocity data and its peak (a\u00E2\u0080\u009Ex) was determined. Total head angular displacement (Omax) was computed by integrating the compensated angular velocity. The time at which each of the three angular kinematic parameters reached a maximum was also determined and the relative timing between these three maxima was used to evaluate whether the responses in the ST trials and RT trials were temporally similar. The acceleration interval was defined as the time between acceleration onset and peak angular velocity (Wmax). The time between peak angular velocity and peak angle (\u00C2\u00A9max) was used to represent the deceleration interval because some subjects continued to negatively accelerate for a considerable period after reaching their peak angular displacement. EMG onset times were determined using a double-threshold detector (Bonato et al., 1998) and then confirmed visually. For each muscle, the root mean squared (RMS) amplitude of the EMG was calculated over the acceleration interval for movement trials. The kinematics could not be used to define a comparable interval for control trials because little or no movement occurred. Therefore, the average duration of the acceleration interval for all movement trials was used to compute the RMS amplitude of the EMG for the first control trial of each subject. The SCM and PARA muscle EMG amplitudes were normalized by the RMS amplitude obtained during the 5 s sub-maximal contraction for the corresponding muscle. Entire trials were rejected if movement preceded the stimulus or if movement did not occur within 200 ms of stimulus onset. Data from individual muscles within an accepted trial were rejected if the muscle was active within 20 ms of stimulus onset, if onset was absent, or if onset was ambiguous. Ratios and arithmetic differences were then computed from the EMG amplitude and onset latency data obtained from the left and right neck muscles under the different stimuli and movement conditions. From the EMG amplitude data, ST/RT ratios were computed by dividing the EMG amplitude observed in the ST trials by the EMG amplitude observed in the RT trials. For each subject, a separate ST/RT ratio was calculated for each of the four neck muscles in each of the two movement conditions (eight ratios per subject). Eight matching RT-ST differences were computed by subtracting the EMG amplitude of the ST trials from the EMG amplitude of the RT trials. A comparison between the ST/RT ratios and RT-ST differences in the different neck muscles and movement conditions was then used to evaluate whether the EMG amplitude observed during ST trials was a scaled or biased version of the EMG amplitude observed during RT trials. If the EMG amplitude observed during ST trials was a scaled version of that observed during RT trials, then similar ST/RT ratios would be expected in all muscles and movement conditions. If instead the EMG amplitude observed during ST 15 trials was biased up or down relative to that observed during RT trials, then similar ST-RT differences would be expected in all muscles and movement conditions. The expected bilateral asymmetry in neck muscle activity during rotation trials provided an opportunity to compare left and right muscle activity using the same technique. For these comparisons, left/right (L/R) ratios of EMG amplitude in the left and right muscles of each functional neck muscle pair were computed for each stimulus condition and each movement direction (eight ratios per subject). Eight matching L-R differences in the EMG amplitude were also computed. As before, a comparison between these L/R ratios and L-R differences was used to evaluate whether bilateral differences in the EMG amplitude observed during ST trials were scaled or biased versions of the EMG amplitude observed during RT trials. In addition to EMG amplitude, ST/RT ratios, ST-RT differences, L/R ratios and L-R differences was also computed from the onset latency data. A comparison between the ST and RT ratios and differences was used to evaluate whether the shortened onset latency observed in the ST trials was scaled forward in time or biased forward in time relative to the onset latency observed in RT trials. A comparison between the left and right ratios and differences was used to evaluate whether bilateral differences in onset latencies observed during ST trials were scaled or biased versions of the bilateral differences observed during RT trials. 2.2.5 Statistical Analysis Prior to statistical comparisons, separate within-subject means were calculated for the dependent variables in the reaction-time trials and startled movement trials. For each kinematic variable, a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences related to stimulus type (RT, ST) and movement direction (flexion, rotation). For EMG onset times and amplitudes, a three-way repeated-measures ANOVA for stimulus type, movement direction and muscle side (left, right) was used. Prior to statistical analysis, the reaction-time data were checked to ensure they were normally distributed using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test. Separate three-way ANOVAs were used for the SCM and PARA muscles. Differences in the onset latencies of both neck muscles and the onset of head acceleration between the RT, ST and CT trials were compared with a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. For these latter analyses, post-hoc comparisons were performed using a Scheffe test. Each of the ratios and differences computed from the onset latencies and EMG amplitudes were analyzed separately for each movement direction. For each ST/RT ratio or difference, a two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA for muscle (SCM, PARA) and muscle side (left, right) was used. For each left/right ratio or difference, a two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA for muscle (SCM, 16 PARA) and stimulus type (ST, RT) was used. A qualitative comparison between the results of the analyses of all ratios and differences was then made to interpret the overall relationship of the ST muscle response to the RT muscle response. A three-way repeated-measures ANOVA was also used to compare the EMG amplitude observed in the control trials to the difference in EMG amplitude observed between the ST and RT trials. The three factors in this analysis were muscle (SCM, PARA), side (left, right) and movement direction (flexion, rotation and control). All statistical tests were performed using Statistica (v.5.1, Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) and a significance level of a=0.05. 2.3 Results Muscle activity was observed in the first control trial of all subjects (Figure 2.1 A). Responses to the latter two control stimuli were typically diminished and in about 10 percent of these latter trials only the OO response remained intact (Figure 2. IB). Within the flexion and rotation blocks, rejected trials reduced the average number of ST trials per subject from 7 to 6.75 \u00C2\u00B1 0.26 per block and the average number of RT trials per subject from 13 to 9.1 \u00C2\u00B1 1.5 per block. All of the ST trial rejections and a small number of RT trial rejections were due to pre-stimulus movement; the remaining RT trial rejections were due to prolonged (>200 ms) response times. Within accepted trials, the SCM muscles were individually rejected once and the PARA muscles were individually rejected eight times in 800 trials. Each individual rejection was due to an ambiguous onset time. 2.3.1 Kinematic Response The timing and amplitude of the head kinematics varied with both stimulus type and movement direction (Table 2.1). Head acceleration onset and peak angular head acceleration (am,*), velocity (aw) and displacement (G^) all occurred earlier during ST than RT trials. The peak magnitudes of all three measures of angular head kinematics were also larger during ST than RT trials. Consistent with these differences in kinematics, subjects qualitatively described their movements during ST trials as being assisted by something in addition to their own will. Overall, the duration of the head acceleration interval was longer during ST than RT trials, however a similar stimulus effect was not observed in the duration of the deceleration interval (Table 2.1). When the acceleration interval was examined more closely, however, a different pattern emerged. For flexion movements only, the time between acceleration onset and amiX increased from 88 \u00C2\u00B1 27 ms for RT trials to 122 \u00C2\u00B1 15 ms for ST trials (post-hoc p<0.0001) and the time between cc\u00E2\u0084\u00A2,* and tOmax decreased from 78 \u00C2\u00B1 15 ms for RT trials to 66 \u00C2\u00B1 21 ms for ST trials (p<0.01). No stimulus effect was observed in the sub-components of the acceleration interval for rotation movements. 17 00 MAS 2 SCM PARA r Accel co OO MAS \u00C2\u00A7 SCM co PARA Accel MAS SCM PARA B D -rVy^k^, -100 0 100 200 300 400 500-100 Time (ms) Flexion 100 200 300 400 500 Time (ms) Rotation Figure 2.1 Sample EMG recordings from the control, startle and reaction time trials of a single subject. A, EMG recordings from the first control trial. B, EMG recordings from the second control trial, administered between the flexion and rotation blocks. C, EMG recordings from a startle trial in which the subject was ready to perform a ballistic flexion movement. D, EMG recordings from a startle trial in which the subject was ready to perform a ballistic axial rotation movement. E, EMG recordings from a reaction time trial for a flexion movement. F, EMG recordings from a reaction time trial for an axial rotation movement. The vertical bar between the Accel and co traces is equivalent to lg and 5 rad/s. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; Accel, linear head acceleration at the forehead; co, angular velocity of the head. The vertical line through all traces of a single trial indicates the onset of either the GO or startling tone. 18 T 3 .ti ~* o <+* \u00E2\u0080\u0094 81 Ui o O C/5 ^ 2 Ui -o C3 c o S oo CD 3 S E -r3 o o u Q E o c o T> o o c o Q (11) CN o ro oo ro Tf in O O Co in* o CN oo q O O vd in o\ * * ro (25) oT T t * * ro (25) m in * * *\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094' (25) * * vO VO oo Os o Os O vo o ro ro ro 00 in IT) c o U c o >< ro S T m ro ro \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094' CN r~- oo CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094H \u00E2\u0080\u0094H \u00E2\u0080\u0094H * ro \u00C2\u00A9 vo * * \u00E2\u0080\u0094H CN CN, CN * * V ' oq * r- V O IT) o O oo V O in . - H vd vo ro V O T ? Tf IT) Os CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094H vo o ro o> ro Tf ro ro * S\ \u00C2\u00A9 Tp CN CN, CN ro ^\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2X-ro CN Cs ro ro Tf O N CN CN CN CN CN * oo O in vd Tf CN Tf Tf Tf Os Tf * VO * * * oo oo m Tf VO H oo in oo o u \"a \u00C2\u00A3 c o E c o o o o d v a. o o d v Cu \u00C2\u00A9 d V o. * * in o d v a. 19 When the head acceleration onset times during the three different trial conditions with startle tones (CT, flexion ST and rotation ST) were compared, a significant difference was present (F2,36=6.4, p=0.004) (Table 2.1). Post-hoc analysis showed that the onset of head acceleration occurred earlier during flexion ST trials than rotation ST trials; differences between the other two combinations of conditions were not significant. 2.3.2 EMG Timing The temporal pattern of neck muscle EMG in individual ST trials was visibly advanced compared to RT trials (Figure 2.1,C-F). For both movements, the onset latencies of the SCM and PARA muscles during ST trials were significantly shorter and exhibited less variation (Table 2.2, Figure 2.2A, B). Mean onset latencies during ST trials were between 42 and 51 percent of their respective onset latencies during RT trials (Figure 2.2C). The shorter onset latencies during ST trials were neither uniformly scaled in time nor uniformly biased forward in time relative to the onset latencies during RT trials. Within flexion movements, the SCM and PARA muscles were advanced by significantly different proportions (Fii9=9.7, p=0.006, Figure 2.2C). The arithmetic difference in onset latencies between the ST and RT trials was also significantly different for the SCM and PARA muscles during flexion movements (Fii9=29.7, p<0.0001) (Figure 2.2D). SCM activation during RT trials occurred earlier in flexion than rotation (Fi>]9=6.9, p=0.017), whereas PARA activation occurred later in flexion than rotation (Fi,19=8.2, p=0.0T0) (Figure 2.2A, B). These movement-related differences in activation times were not present during ST trials. For each muscle, the onset latencies for flexion and rotation movements during ST trials were not significantly different from each other or the CT trials. A small but significant bilateral asymmetry was present in the neck muscle activation sequence during rotation trials (Table 2.2, Figure 2.2A,B). The right SCM and right PARA muscles were active 10 \u00C2\u00B1 14 percent earlier than their left counterparts (FU9=25.5, p<0.0001) and this relative timing was not significantly different between the ST and RT conditions (Figure 2.2E). The arithmetic difference between the activation time of the right and left muscles between the ST and RT conditions, however, was significantly different (Fi,i9=11.4, p=0.003, Figure 2.2F). 2.3.3 EMG Amplitude During the acceleration portion of the head motion, the RMS amplitude of the normalized EMG was larger during ST than RT trials for both muscles during both types of movements (Table 2.2, Figure 2.3A, B). EMG amplitude was bilaterally symmetrical for all flexion trials, but bilaterally asymmetrical for all rotation trials. For both ST and RT trials during rotation, the EMG amplitude Table 2.2 Mean (S.D.) of muscle activation time and normalized EMG amplitude for the sternocleidomastoid and cervical paraspinal muscles. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of muscle (SCM, PARA), side (left, right), motion direction (control trials, flexion trials, rotation trials) and stimulus intensity (startle tone, reaction time tone). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics, df=l,19) of four separate 3-way repeated-measures ANOVAs using muscle side, motion direction and stimulus intensity as independent variables. Control data were not used in these analyses. Each statistical result is centered below its source data. SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscles; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; L, left; R, right; CT, control trial, ST, startle trial; RT, reaction time trial. Muscle activation time (ms) Normalized EMG amplitude SCM PARA SCM PARA Description L R L R L R L R Control CT 56(13) 55 (13) 66 (23) 64 (23) 2.8(2.1) 2.6(2.1) 4.2 (3.4) 4.3 (3.5) Flexion trials ST 52(12) 52 (12) 59(11) 60(14) 4.3(2.1) 3.8 (1.4) 2.9(1.9) 3.1 (2.3) RT 107 (28) 107 (25) 141 (31) 140 (30) 2.9(1.7) 2.5 (1.3) 1.7 (0.7) 1.8 (0.7) Rotation trials ST 52 (8) 49 (7) 58(11) 55 (9) 4.4 (2.1) 2.4(1.5) 3.5 (1.7) 7.3 (3.1) RT 123 (32) 116(28) 131 (29) 120 (28) 3.4(1.9) 1.2 (0.9) 2.3 (1.1) 5.9 (2.4) ANOVA F-statistics side (L/R) 8.66** motion (flex/rot) 5.16* stimulus (ST/RT) 145**** side x motion 20.7*** side x stimulus motion x stimulus 7.07* side x motion x stim *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001 11.0** 267**** 10.3** 4.98* 19 7*** 7.23* 103**** 73 8**** 64 2**** 64.9**** 25 2**** 60.4**** 21 B 200] 0 ^ 1 I I a \u00E2\u0080\u00A2g E O C T \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right tt H ST RT Flexion ST RT Rotation 200 CD | 5100 O C T \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right I I I* ST RT Flexion ST RT Rotation 1.0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right 0.5 0.0 S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation 1.5 1.0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ST \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 RT 200 op t\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 100 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation 30 \u00C2\u00A3 0 Q DC 0.5 S C M PARA Flexion SCM PARA Rotation -30 S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation Figure 2.2 Muscle activation times, ratios and differences for the neck muscles of all subjects. A, Mean onset times \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. for the left and right sternocleidomastoid muscles during control, flexion and rotation trials. Note that onset times during control and startle trials were significantly faster than onset times for reaction-time trials. B, Similar to previous panel except for the cervical paraspinal muscles. C, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST onset time to the RT onset time (ST/RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side (L, R) and movement type (flexion, rotation). D, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST and RT onset times (RT-ST) for each muscle as a function of muscle side and movement type. E, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left to right onset latency (L/R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus (ST, RT) and movement type. F, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right onset times (L-R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type. 22 E S O Q . S E 0) CO CO 00 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right ST RT Flexion ST RT Rotation B CO tr \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right ST RT Flexion ST RT Rotation 7 1 6 .2 5 DC 4 CO 2 1 0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation 7 6 5 .2 4 2 1 0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ST \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 RT S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation CD o Q 0 cc h-co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Left o Right H i S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation Q CC \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ST \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 RT S C M PARA Flexion S C M PARA Rotation Figure 2.3 EMG amplitudes, ratios and differences for the neck muscles of all subjects. A, Mean normalized RMS EMG amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right sternocleidomastoid muscles as a function of stimulus (ST, RT) and movement type (flexion, rotation). B, Similar to previous panel except for the cervical paraspinal muscles. Note the bilateral symmetry during flexion movements and bilateral asymmetry during rotation movements. C, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST amplitude to the RT amplitude (ST/RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side (L, R) and movement type. D, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the ST and RT amplitudes (ST-RT) for each muscle as a function of muscle side and movement type. Note the consistent upward bias present in the startle trials. E, mean ratio \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left to right amplitudes (L/R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type. F, mean arithmetic difference \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of the left and right amplitudes (L-R) for each functional muscle pair as a function of stimulus and movement type. 23 was larger for the left SCM muscle than the right SCM muscle, whereas for the PARA muscles this pattern was reversed. The proportional increase in EMG amplitude between the RT and ST trials varied between muscles and side of muscle during rotation movements (Figure 2.3C), whereas the bias in EMG varied with neither parameter during either flexion or rotation movements (Figure 2.3D). The EMG amplitude of the left and right muscles appeared to be bias upward by a similar amount in both movements. This uniform upward bias implied that the difference in EMG amplitude between the left and right muscles would also be similar between stimulus conditions, and a comparison of the ratios and differences of the left and right EMG amplitudes confirmed that the RT movement appeared to be preserved atop the upward bias in EMG amplitude present in the ST trials (Figure 2.3E, F). A comparison between the control trial EMG amplitude and the amount of the upward bias between the RT and ST trials for each pair of neck muscles revealed that they were significantly different (F2>38=16.0, p<0.0001) (Table 2.2). The amplitude of the control trials varied between 10 and 900 percent of the upward bias between the ST and RT trials. 2.3.4 Habituation Neither muscle activation time, EMG amplitude nor peak angular head kinematics changed significantly with repeated exposure to startle in the movement trials (Figure 2.4). This absence of habituation was observed in both blocks of trials, and therefore normalized data from the first and second blocks were pooled for Figure 2.4. Despite the absence of habituation in startled movement trials, large and in some cases complete habituation of the neck muscle response was observed in the startle-only control trials between and after the movement blocks (Figure 2.1 A, B). 2.4 Discussion A loud acoustic stimulus capable of producing a startle reflex shortens the time to muscle activation in subjects ready to execute a simple reaction-time task. Using this technique, Valls-Sole et al. (1999) observed that the EMG amplitude of a startle-induced muscle response in distal limb muscles was not different from the EMG amplitude of the reaction-time muscle response. Based on this finding, these authors discounted a summation of the startle reflex and pre-programmed movement, and instead proposed that the startling stimulus triggered the release of a pre-programmed movement stored in subcortical structures. This proposal did not, however, explain what became of the descending startle volley. In the current study, this same technique was used to study the startle-induced response of neck muscles ready to execute ballistic head movements. Neck muscles were selected because they have a larger startle response (Brown et al., 1991a; Vidailhet et al., 1992) and might therefore be 24 CD CO \u00C2\u00A7100 03 CD tr B CD Q . \u00C2\u00AB100 CD > rr 0 OOI OOr MASI MASr SCMI SCMr PARAI PARAr OOI OOr MASI MASr SCMI SCMr PARAI PARAr CD Q . E CB CD cr ^max m^ax Figure 2.4 Absence of habituation to startle during sequential trials. A, Mean EMG amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of all muscles over the seven sequential startle trials during the flexion block. The EMG amplitude of each one of the subject's muscles was first expressed as a percentage of amplitude observed in that muscle during the first trial and then the mean was calculated. Note the absence of habituation between the first startle trial (the first trial of a block) and the seventh startle trial (the 20th trial within a block). B, Similar to previous panel, but for rotation movements. C, Mean amplitude \u00C2\u00B1 1 S.D. of similarly normalized angular head kinematics. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 9, head angle. 25 better candidates with which to study the potential summation of startle and reaction-time muscle responses. Two head movements, flexion and axial rotation, were used so that the within-muscle effects of startle could be examined in different muscle synergies during otherwise similar states of readiness. It was thought that a comparison of the muscle response between these two movements would provide additional information with which to evaluate whether the muscle response produced by the startling stimulus was a temporally-advanced, but otherwise unaltered, version of the reaction-time muscle response, or the summation of a startle response and a temporally-advanced reaction-time muscle response. 2.4.1 Muscle Response The onset of neck muscle EMG activity in the current study occurred earlier in startled movement trials than in reaction-time trials. Compared to RT trials, the onset of the response in the different neck muscles during ST trials was neither proportionally scaled forward in time nor biased forward in time (Figure 2.2C, D). Instead, activation of the SCM and PARA muscles during ST trials appeared to be aligned with activation of these muscles during the startle-only control trials. Therefore, the onset of EMG activity in the neck muscles during the ST trials was indistinguishable from and consistent with the leading edge of the descending startle volley. The amplitude of the neck muscle response in the current study was larger in ST trials than in RT trials (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.3A, B). This increased amplitude was inconsistent with the acoustic startle reflex only releasing a pre-programmed movement resident in the brainstem and suggested that some type of interaction between the startle reflex and prepared movement had occurred. One possible interaction was a summing of the startle reflex and the movement; another possible interaction was a scaling of the movement with the intensity of the acoustic stimulus. A comparison between the ratios and arithmetic differences of the EMG amplitude from the ST and RT trials indicated that the larger muscle response during ST trials was due to an upward bias in the EMG amplitude rather than a proportional upward scaling of the EMG amplitude (Figure 2.3C, D). This bilaterally-symmetrical and movement-independent increase in EMG amplitude for both neck muscle groups suggested that the muscle response during ST trials was not just a prepared movement released by the acoustic startle reflex, but rather the summation of a temporally-advanced movement and a generalized neck muscle activation due to the startle reflex. The apparent summation of a startle reflex and a pre-programmed reaction-time movement was also examined by comparing the EMG amplitude in the control trials to the magnitude of the upward bias observed between the reaction-time and startled movement trials. This analysis revealed that the upward bias was unrelated to the magnitude of the muscle response in the startle-only control 26 trials. The results of such a comparison, however, must be considered cautiously because the level of baseline readiness in the unwarned startle-only control trials was not the same as the level of readiness in the forewarned startled movement trials. In contrast, the level of motor readiness in the startled movement trials of the flexion and rotation movement blocks was likely similar and therefore a comparison between the startle-induced increase in EMG amplitude between the two different movements was preferred. Though needing cautious interpretation, the comparison between the EMG amplitude of the control trials and upward bias between RT and ST trials did demonstrate that the startle reflex could generate sufficient EMG amplitude to account for the upward bias observed in the startled movement trials. Increased EMG amplitude was not reported by Valls-Sole et al. (1999) in the distal limb muscles they studied. One possible explanation for the difference between studies is the more variable and less robust startle response in distal limb muscles than in neck muscles (Brown et al., 1991a; Chokroverty et al., 1992; Vidailhet et al., 1992). The superposition of a small startle-related bias on a comparatively large movement-related distal muscle response may not have been qualitatively detectable by Valls-Sole et al. (1999). Another potential explanation for the difference between studies is the variable foreperiod used in the present study and the fixed foreperiod used by Valls-Sole et al. (1999). This protocol difference may have produced differing levels of preparatory activity in the cortex, brainstem and spinal cord and the specific state of this preparatory activity may have affected the startle-induced muscle response. A third possible explanation for the difference between studies lies in the brainstem circuits mediating the acoustic startle reflex and is developed more fully below. A number of different pathways for the mammalian acoustic startle reflex have been proposed (see summary in Yeomans and Frankland, 1996). Al l of the proposed pathways include an initial synapse in the cochlear nucleus, which then either monosynaptically or disynaptically, via neurons in or near the lateral lemniscus, terminate in midbrain reticular nuclei. The axons of the reticular nuclei then synapse either directly, or indirectly via spinal interneurones, onto spinal motoneurones. Giant neurons in the nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis (nRPC) are thought to be the sensorimotor interface of the startle reflex (Wu et al., 1988; Lingenhohl and Friauf, 1994; Koch, 1999). Large-diameter descending axons from these giant neurons have both sufficiently diffuse and multi-segmental spinal connections (Lingenhohl and Friauf, 1992; Lingenhohl and Friauf, 1994) and sufficiently high conduction velocities (Wu et al., 1988; Lingenhohl and Friauf, 1994) to be strong candidates for carrying a descending startle volley. Corticoreticular fibres from the primary motor cortex and pre-motor area also terminate in the vicinity of the reticular nuclei and may provide the reticular nuclei with sufficient information of the impending movement for the reticulospinal fibres to 27 modulate reflex actions and to coordinate posture and movement (Matsuyama and Drew, 1997; Kably and Drew, 1998). Based on their observation of an accelerated motor programme without increased EMG or movement amplitude, Valls-Sole et al. (1999) proposed that sufficient detail of the planned movement might be stored in the brainstem and spinal cord so that the movement could be triggered by the same reticular structures responsible for the startle reflex. Moreover, these authors suggested that the reticulospinal system might be an important response channel for ballistic reaction-time tasks. Both proposals are consistent with the startle pathways described above. In the present study, however, EMG amplitude was larger in ST trials than in RT trials, and the increase in EMG amplitude consisted of an upward bias that was seemingly independent of the EMG amplitude present during the voluntary movement. This bias was difficult to reconcile with a single descending pathway and suggested that parallel pathways might be responsible. Pellet (1990) has shown that the head and neck startle may be mediated slightly differently than startle in the limbs. Pellet (1990) observed that another reticular structure, the nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis (nRG), has monosynaptic connections with the neck muscle motoneurones and may be excited independently from the nRPC during startle. Moreover, axonal branches from acoustically-driven neurons in the nRPC terminate on neurons in the nRG (Lingenhohl and Friauf, 1994). Pellet (1990) proposed that parallel pathways between the cochlear nuclei and the neck muscle motoneurones via the nRPC and nRG might mediate different components of the startle reflex in the head and neck. Such a parallel arrangement might explain a muscle response which simultaneously consists of a bilaterally-uniform increase in neck EMG amplitude, perhaps mediated through one of the reticular nuclei, and a temporally advanced version of the reaction-time movement, perhaps mediated by pre-movement facilitation or inhibition through the other reticular nucleus. Therefore, differences in the neuroanatomical pathways for the startle reflex of the neck and limb muscles may explain why increased EMG amplitude was observed in the present study using neck muscles but not observed previously in distal limb muscles (Valls-Sole et al., 1999). 2.4.2 Kinematic Response Like the muscle response, the peak head kinematics occurred earlier and were of greater magnitude in ST trials than in RT trials (Table 2.1). Once initiated, however, the temporal aspects of the movements observed in the ST and RT trials were remarkably similar. No differences in the relative timing of acceleration onset and peak angular head kinematics were observed between the ST and RT trials involving the rotation movement. For the flexion movement, differences between the ST and RT trials were present only during the acceleration interval. Within this acceleration interval, 28 two contrary effects were observed. The sub-interval between acceleration onset and peak angular acceleration was longer in flexion ST trials than in flexion RT trials, and the sub-interval between peak angular acceleration and peak angular velocity was shorter in flexion ST trials than in flexion RT trials. The reason for this pattern and why it appeared only in the flexion movement is not known, but it may be related to a flexor bias observed by some in the startle reflex (Landis and Hunt, 1939; Davis, 1984). Although the analysis of EMG amplitude suggested that the RT movement was preserved atop the startle-induced bias in ST trials, the movement kinematics were larger in ST trials than in RT trials. These kinematic differences indicated that the forces generated by the muscles were larger during ST trials than during RT trials, even though the difference in the amplitude of the EMG measured from these muscles remained the same (Figure 2.3F). The reason for this apparent discrepancy between the muscle and kinematic responses is not known, however, factors which might have contributed to this phenomenon are temporal summation due to possible differences in the rate of muscle activation, or the recruitment of different or additional motor units during ST trials. 2.4.3 Habituation An unexpected finding in the present study was the absence of habituation in all four muscles during startled movement trials over the 15-minute interval required for both blocks of trials (Figure 2.4). This finding contrasted sharply with the clear habituation observed over the three control trials placed before, between and after the two movement blocks (Figure 2.1). This difference in habituation suggested that readiness to move facilitated the startle reflex. Moreover, since the first startled movement trial within each movement block was only preceded by mental preparation for that movement, practice was not needed for this readiness to facilitate the startle-induced muscle response. Reduced habituation to startle has previously been reported in both MAS and SCM using acoustic startle superimposed on a visual GO stimulus in an upper limb reaction-time task (Valls-Sole et al., 1997; Valldeoriola et al., 1998). The difference in habituation rates, namely the absence of habituation in the present study compared to the reduced habituation in the previous studies, might be explained by differences in subject readiness. Readiness to perform a voluntary RT task has been modeled using separate facilitated motor and sensory systems (Silverstein et al., 1981; Brunia, 1993). The motor preparation aspects of the current reaction-time task were similar to previous studies (Valls-Sole et al., 1997), although the involvement of the SCM and MAS muscles was different. SCM was a prime mover in the current study and MAS may have helped stabilize the jaw during the rapid head movements. These muscles were likely not involved in the limb movements used by Vails-29 Sole et al., (1997). Sensory facilitation in the current study, however, was likely quite different from these previous studies. In the current study, the warning, GO and startling stimuli were in the same modality and therefore a facilitated auditory system may have generated a large afferent signal. In contrast, previous studies (Valls-Sole et al., 1997; Valldeoriola et al., 1998) had subjects focus on a visual GO stimulus - a task that would have facilitated the visual system and may have inhibited the auditory system against an acoustic startle. A sensory-mediated difference in habituation rates between studies was consistent with previous reports of larger eye-blink EMG amplitudes during acoustic startle when subjects attended to acoustic rather than visual stimuli (Schicatano and Blumenthal, 1998; Lipp et al., 2000). Whatever the explanation of the short-term elimination of habituation observed here, an experimental protocol that eliminates habituation to startle allows increased use of acoustic startle as both a clinical and research tool to study the central nervous system. A small asynchrony in the activation of the left and right SCM and PARA muscle during startled rotation movements suggested that subtle temporal aspects of the reaction-time movement were preserved even when the movement was temporally advanced by the startling stimulus. If pre-activation of the right SCM muscle in a movement dominated by the left SCM muscle is accepted as evidence of an anticipatory postural adjustment (APA), then the preservation, and indeed the scaling, of this activation asynchrony may be evidence that APAs and focal movements are coupled at or below the level of the brainstem. Although it was unclear whether this asynchrony represented an APA, startle may be a potentially novel method of studying the coupling of the focal and postural components of movements. In summary, the results of the current neck muscle study showed that the acoustic startle reflex was facilitated by readiness to execute a reaction-time task and that the reflexive muscle response evoked by startle could be sculpted by this same readiness. The similar onset latencies of the pure startle reflex and the startle-induced movements, combined with the consistent increase in EMG amplitude and movement kinematics from the reaction-time trials to the startled movement trials, provided compelling evidence that startle-induced movements in the neck muscles were the summation of a startle response and a temporally advanced pre-programmed movement. Parallel neural pathways unique to the neck muscle motoneurones might explain why startle increased EMG amplitudes in the current study, but not in previous studies employing distal limb muscles. 2.5 Bridging Summary For this thesis, the first hypothesis of this experiment was that the cervical muscle response evoked by an auditory startle stimulus was different in relaxed subjects than in subjects ready to 30 execute a rapid neck movement. The results of this experiment clearly showed that the reflex * response of the neck muscles was altered by consciously preparing to execute a ballistic reaction time task, and therefore the first hypothesis was accepted. The second hypothesis, that this alteration in the reflex response could occur in the first trial without practicing the movement, was also accepted. Together, these two findings indicated that the reflex response of the neck muscles was malleable and provided a mechanism by which event awareness, and in particular temporal awareness, of a stimulus could affect the reflex muscle response generated by that stimulus. The ability to alter the reflex response of the neck muscles, however, did not mean that subjects necessarily make use of this phenomenon in non-reaction-time settings. The remainder of the experiments conducted for this thesis focused on whether subjects exploited this malleability during exposures to whiplash-like perturbations. 31 C H A P T E R 3 RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PERTURBATION 3.1 Introduction The biomechanical factors that affect the risk of whiplash injury remain poorly understood. Compared to other crash directions, rear-end collisions, where an occupant's vehicle is struck from behind and accelerated forward, have been associated with both an increased risk of whiplash injury (Nygren et al., 1985; Otte and Rether, 1985; Olney and Marsden, 1986; Deans et al., 1987; van Koch et al., 1995; Jakobsson et al., 2000) and a higher frequency of multiple symptoms (Sturzenegger et al., 1994) . Female gender has also been associated with increased risk of whiplash injury (O'Neill et al., 1972; Balla, 1980; Kahane, 1982; Lovsund et al., 1988; Otremski et al., 1989; Jakobsson et al., 2000). Few other risk factors for whiplash injury have been established, although a recent cohort study of whiplash-injured individuals has shown that being unprepared for a collision was related to both a higher frequency of multiple symptoms and more severe headaches in the first weeks following the collision (Sturzenegger et al., 1994). Being unprepared, in combination with an \"inclined\" head position, was also associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms lasting at least one year (Sturzenegger et al., 1995). Both of these recent studies suggested that some component of being unprepared for a collision increased the potential for whiplash injury. Physical preparation, such as pre-tensing the neck muscles or altering pre-impact posture, in advance of a whiplash-like perturbation has been shown to reduce the peak magnitude of an occupant's kinematic response to a perturbation (Ono et al., 1997; Pope et al., 1998). This reduced response may be responsible for the reduced injury potential observed by Sturzenegger et al. (1994, 1995) . A second component of being unprepared for the collision - being unaware of the imminent perturbation - may also be important, particularly in the study of whiplash injury biomechanics in the laboratory. Awareness of an event, independent of external physical preparations, creates anticipation. Using a reaction-time protocol, Frank (1986) has shown that this anticipation results in facilitation of spinal reflexes related to a preparatory set in advance of the event. Siegmund et al. (in press) have also shown that anticipation, in the form of mental preparation of a movement, prior to a reflex-evoking stimulus can alter the reflex muscle response and the resulting kinematics. In all human subject experiments investigating whiplash injury biomechanics, subjects have been aware that a perturbation was imminent (Severy et al., 1955; Mertz and Patrick, 1967; Gutierrez, 1978; McConnell et al., 1993; Geigl et al., 1994; Matsushita et al., 1994; Szabo et al., 1994; McConnell et al., 1995; Ono and Kanno, 1996; Szabo and Welcher, 1996; Castro et al., 1997; Ono et al., 1997; Siegmund et al., 1997; Davidsson et al., 1998; Pope et al., 1998; van den Kroonenberg et 32 al., 1998). Though varying levels of temporal awareness, i.e., awareness regarding the exact timing of the perturbation, have been used in these studies, all of the subjects were nonetheless aware that a perturbation would occur. As a result, the pre-perturbation condition of these experimental subjects was not identical to that of unprepared occupants in most real collisions. Given that awareness has been associated with measures of both injury severity and duration (Sturzenegger et al., 1994), this difference between laboratory conditions and actual injury-producing collisions may be important. The aim of this study was to examine how awareness of the presence and timing of a whiplash-like perturbation affected the muscle and kinematic responses of human subjects. A unique aspect of this experiment was the use of deception to create a surprised condition that better represented the unprepared state of vehicle occupants in most real collisions. This surprised condition was compared to two other levels of awareness that encompassed those used in previous human subject studies of whiplash biomechanics. An alerted condition, in which subjects received a countdown to the perturbation, represented an extreme condition in which the timing of the perturbation was precisely known. This condition might represent sled tests in which subjects were initially moving rearward and could potentially predict when they would be abruptly halted (Mertz and Patrick, 1967; Ono et al., 1997), or vehicle-to-vehicle collisions in which instrumentation noise, i.e., camera windup, or limited regard to controlling visual and auditory cues might have allowed subjects to predict the time of impact (Severy et al., 1955; McConnell et al., 1993). An unalerted condition represented most other studies in which subjects knew an impact would occur, but could not predict its precise timing. Based on the increased risk of injury identified in unprepared vehicle occupants (Sturzenegger et al., 1994), it was hypothesized that the neck muscle and kinematic responses of subjects at different levels of awareness regarding the presence and timing of a whiplash-like perturbation would be different. To account for the previously-identified risk factors of collision direction and gender, a simulated rear-end collision and similar numbers of male and female subjects were used to examine potential gender-specific differences. Awareness-related difference or gender-related differences in an awareness effect, if present, might identify biomechanical variables important to the aetiology of whiplash injury. 3.2 Methods 3.2.1 Subjects Sixty-six subjects participated in the experiment. Physical characteristics for the subjects are given in Table 3.1. The subjects had no history of whiplash injury, medical conditions that impair 33 sensory or motor function, or prolonged neck or back pain in the previous three years. Al l subjects gave their informed consent and were paid a nominal amount for their participation. The use of human subjects for this experiment was approved by the university's Ethics Review Board and the study conformed with the Declaration of Helsinki. Table 3.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics. Female Male n 35 31 Age, yrs 24 (5) 27 (7) Height, cm 166 (7) 176 (8) Mass, kg 60(10) 77 (15) 3.2.2 Instrumentation Electromyographic (EMG) activity in the orbicularis oculi (OO), masseter (MAS), sternocleidomastoid (SCM) and cervical paraspinal (PARA) muscles was recorded bilaterally using 10 mm pre-gelled surface electrodes (H69P, Kendall-LTP, Huntington Beach, CA) and an Octopus AMT-8 amplifier (Bortec, Calgary, AB). Two uniaxial accelerometers (Kistler 8302B20S1; \u00C2\u00B120g, Amherst, NY) and a single uniaxial angular rate sensor (ATA Sensors ARS-04E; \u00C2\u00B1100 rad/s, Albuquerque, NM) were strapped tightly to the midline of a subject's forehead, immediately above the glabella. The sensitive axes of the accelerometers were mutually orthogonal and oriented to measure horizontal (x') and vertical (z') acceleration in the mid-sagittal plane (Figure 3.1). The rotational axis of the angular rate sensor was oriented mediolaterally to measure flexion and extension motion in the sagittal plane. In some subjects, torso acceleration was measured using an uniaxial accelerometer (Kistler 8302B20S1; \u00C2\u00B120g, Amherst, NY) applied with adhesive over the manubrium about 2 cm below its superior margin. Sled acceleration was measured using an uniaxial accelerometer (Sensotec JTF3629-05; \u00C2\u00B110g, Columbus, OH) oriented horizontally along the axis of motion. Displacement was measured using an Optotrak motion analysis system (Northern Digital, Waterloo, ON) with markers placed over the left mastoid process and midline at the subject's forehead, vertex of the head, manubrium and C7 spinous process (Figure 3.1). A sixth marker was placed on the left seat hinge. A force transducer (Artech S-Beam SS20210, \u00C2\u00B12 kN, Riverside, CA) was used to measure reaction loads during normalizing contractions of the SCM and PARA muscles. EMG signals were bandpass filtered at 10 Hz to 1 kHz and transducer signals were low-pass filtered at 34 Acceleration direction Figure 3.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the forehead reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between 12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame. 1 J -1 100 200 Time (ms) 300 Property Mean (S.D.) Peak acceleration (g) 1.52 (0.04) Time to peak acceleration (ms) 16.3 (1.2) Pulse duration (ms) 59.9 (0.3) Speed change (mis) 0.497 (0.006) Average acceleration (g) 0.897 (0.004) Figure 3.2 Sample acceleration pulse and descriptive statistics of selected pulse properties. 35 1 kHz before being simultaneously sampled at 2 kHz and stored for subsequent analysis. Optotrak data were acquired at 200 Hz per marker. 3.2.3 Test Procedures Subjects were seated in an automobile seat obtained from the front passenger location of a 1991 Honda Accord. The head restraint was removed from the top of the seat back to eliminate the potential for an externally applied load to the head during the perturbation. The seat was mounted on a custom fabricated sled powered by a feedback-controlled linear induction motor (Kollmorgen IC55-100A7, Kommack, NY). The sled generated no pre-perturbation signals, either audible or mechanical, which subjects could use to predict onset of the perturbation. To install and connect some of the instrumentation, subjects were seated on the sled about 15 minutes before their perturbation. This allowed the subjects sufficient time to adopt a comfortable seated posture. Prior to testing, subjects were instructed to sit normally, face forward, rest their forearms on their lap and to relax their face and neck muscles. Each subject was exposed to a single perturbation which accelerated the subject horizontally forward (Figure 3.2). Subjects did not receive a practice or demonstration perturbation prior to testing. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: alerted, unalerted or surprised. Subjects in the alerted group received a countdown consisting of two auditory tones (1000 Hz, 80 dB, 40 ms duration) spaced 1 s apart. The perturbation then occurred 1 s after the second tone, coincident with the expected time of a third tone had one been presented. Subjects in the unalerted group were told to expect a perturbation some time in the next 60 seconds and then received a perturbation about 15 seconds later. In order to elicit the surprised response, subjects in the third group were deceived. Once ready for their first perturbation, subjects in the surprised group were told that a baseline measurement of their relaxed muscle activity was needed before their perturbation. For this baseline test, these subjects received the same instructions regarding their seated posture and muscle activity level as subjects in the other two groups. During this fictitious baseline measurement, these subjects received their perturbation. Immediately after their perturbation, subjects in the surprised group were informed of the true nature of the study. Prior to the above protocol, seated subjects performed sub-maximal isometric contractions in flexion and extension to generate normalizing data for the SCM and PARA muscles respectively. A strap attached to the load cell was placed around a subject's head and its length adjusted to ensure the subject's head was neutrally positioned. The strap was located immediately above the glabella for flexion contractions and at the height of the external occipital protuberance for extension contractions. Subjects were instructed to generate a force of 50 N with visual feedback, first in flexion 36 and then in extension. EMG and load cell data were acquired for 5 s during each contraction. 3.2.4 Data Reduction A subject's initial position was determined from the Optotrak data immediately preceding their perturbation. Initial head position was defined in the laboratory reference frame using the horizontal (X-axis; positive forward) and vertical (Z-axis; positive downward) positions of the mastoid process relative to the seat hinge (Figure 3.1). Initial head angle in the sagittal plane was determined from the forehead and vertex markers and reported relative to the positive X-axis (+0y rotation corresponded to extension). Initial torso position was defined using the horizontal and vertical positions of the midpoint between the manubrium and C7 spinous process markers relative to the seat hinge, and torso angle relative to the horizontal plane was determined using the same two markers. The RMS accuracy of the position measurements from the Optotrak system was less than 0.1 mm, and based on marker separation, the RMS accuracy of the calculated angles was less than 0.1 degrees. The onset of head and torso movement, peak head accelerations and the time of the peak head accelerations were determined directly from the accelerometer data. The algorithm used to determine onset is developed in Appendix A. Forehead acceleration data were not resolved into the lab reference frame. Peak retraction, defined as the maximum horizontal translation of the top of the cervical spine rearward relative to the bottom of the cervical spine, was estimated using the maximum relative horizontal displacement in the lab reference frame between the Optotrak markers on the mastoid and manubrium. Peak angular velocity of the head was determined from the angular rate sensor data after it had been digitally compensated to reduce the sensor's high-pass frequency to 0.002 Hz (Laughlin, 1998). Angular acceleration was then computed by finite differences (5 ms window) from the compensated angular velocity data. Total head angular displacement was determined from the Optotrak markers located at the forehead and vertex. Horizontal and vertical accelerations at the mastoid process were computed by double differentiation of the Optotrak data. This technique produced results within O.lg of the values computed using a rigid body transformation of the linear and angular accelerations measured at the forehead and was preferred because it relied on data from only one Optotrak marker rather than data from two accelerometers, an angular rate sensor and two Optotrak markers needed for the rigid body calculation. Mastoid accelerations were reported in the lab reference frame. Pre-stimulus noise in each channel of the EMG data was quantified using the root mean squared (RMS) amplitude of the EMG signal over the 100 ms preceding the perturbation. EMG onset was defined as the time at which the RMS amplitude, computed from the raw EMG data using a 37 moving 20 ms window, reached 10 percent of it maximum value and was then confirmed visually. For each muscle, the RMS amplitude of the EMG signal was calculated for the interval between EMG onset and peak head extension angle. The corresponding pre-stimulus noise for each muscle was then subtracted from this quantity. The SCM and PARA muscle EMG amplitudes were normalized by the RMS amplitude obtained during the 5 s sub-maximal contraction for the corresponding muscle. Angular kinematic data from one subject were lost due to a grounding problem and Optotrak data were lost in another subject due to synchronization problems. A mastoid marker was not present for the first subject, and other mastoid data were deleted due to marker dropout, excessive vibration or the absence of an initial upward acceleration component. EMG onset could not be reliably determined for the OO and MAS muscles in one subject and for the PARA muscles in three different subjects due to excessive sled-induced noise. This precluded calculating the PARA RMS magnitude for these same subjects. 3.2.5 Statistical Analysis For each kinematic dependent variable, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences related to level of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (female, male). Electromyographic variables were first assessed using a three-way ANOVA with muscle side (left, right) added as a repeated measures variable to the awareness and gender factors. After confirming that there were no statistical effects related to muscle side, the mean of the left and right sided data was computed and a two-way ANOVA for awareness and gender only was performed. Dependent variables which contained within-cell values that were not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilks test, p<0.05) were reanalyzed using a rank-based non-parametric ANOVA (Zimmerman and Zumbo, 1993). If the results of the parametric and non-parametric ANOVAs were similar, then it was assumed that the parametric analysis was valid (Conover, 1999). All statistical tests were performed using Statistica (v.5.1, Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) and a significance level of a=0.05. Post-hoc comparisons between the three levels of awareness were first performed using a Scheffe test, but then relaxed to a Tukey's honest significant difference test. 3.3 Results 3.3.1 Initial Position An absence of awareness-related differences in the initial position and angle of the head and torso indicated that subjects did not use the pre-perturbation warning to adjust their seated posture (Table 3.2). Gender-related differences, however, were present in the initial head and torso positions and were consistent with male subjects being larger than female subjects. The mastoid process of the 38 Table 3.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (female, male). Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 2-way A N O V A s using awareness and gender as independent variables. X, horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis. Mastoid process Head Manubrium-C7 midpoint Torso X Z angle X Z angle (mm) (mm) (deg) (mm) (mm) (deg) Female Surprised 15 (21) -649 (43) 6.9 (4.6) 23 (16) -560 (37) -16.3 (4.8) Unalerted 11(16) -642 (23) 7.1 (1.9) 21 (14) -552(19) -15.9 (4.1) Alerted 7(19) -641 (35) 7.9 (3.4) 21 (10) -555 (29) -16.7 (4.7) Male Surprised 20 (20) -681 (33) 8.2 (6.6) 33 (16) -583 (30) -16.5 (5.0) Unalerted 29 (12) -664 (36) 9.3 (3.8) 38 (6) -573 (33) -15.7 (3.4) Alerted 21 (18) -672 (25) 9.6 (4.8) 28(14) -582 (25) -17.2 (5.0) N 64 64 65 62 62 62 ANOVA F-statistics Aware Gender 6.82* 11.2** 10.5** 9.64** Aware x Gender *p<0.05, **p<0.01 39 average male subject was located 12 mm forward (F158=6.82, p<0.05) and 28 mm above (Fli58=11.2, p<0.01) the mastoid process of the average female subject. Similarly, the midpoint between the manubrium and C7 markers of the average male subject was 11 mm forward (Fi i56=10.5, p<0.01) and 23 mm above (Fi56=9.64, p<0.01) the same point on the average female subject. Despite these position differences, there were no gender differences in either the initial head or torso angles. 3.3.2 Kinematic Response The perturbations produced a stereotypical response in all subjects (Figure 3.3). Neither the onset of torso acceleration nor the time of peak torso acceleration were related to awareness or gender. Averaged across all conditions, the onset of torso acceleration occurred at 20 \u00C2\u00B1 2 ms after perturbation onset and peak torso acceleration occurred at 78 \u00C2\u00B1 9 ms after perturbation onset. Evidence of head acceleration appeared first in the vertically mounted accelerometer 29 \u00C2\u00B1 5 ms after perturbation onset and was similarly unrelated to awareness or gender. Amongst the peak kinematic parameters analyzed (labeled with hollow circles in Figure 3.3), only peak retraction (rx) varied with awareness (F2,57=4.00, p<0.05, Table 3.3). This main effect was tempered by an awareness x gender interaction (F2>57=3.23, p<0.05), which indicated that awareness affected male and female subjects differently. Two other kinematic parameters also yielded significant interaction effects: peak horizontal acceleration of the mastoid process (x2 - F257=4.36, p<0.05) and peak angular head acceleration in flexion (cc2 - F259=4.70, p<0.05). Post-hoc testing of these parameters revealed that the surprised female subjects had a 30 percent lower mastoid acceleration than unalerted female subjects (p=0.020) and surprised female subjects had a 29 percent larger retraction than all other awareness-gender combinations (p<0.031) except that of unalerted male subjects. Surprised males, on the other hand, had a larger head angular acceleration in flexion (a2) than alerted male subjects (p=0.021). One surprised male subject with a large angular acceleration (-410 rad/s2) increased the mean presented in Table 3.3 (mean=-146 \u00C2\u00B1 28 rad/s2 without this data point) and may have skewed the ANOVA. A rank-based non-parametric ANOVA run on the same data also yielded a significant awareness x gender interaction and supported the same post-hoc result (p=0.022). In addition to these awareness effects, the peak amplitude of two other parameters varied with gender. Compared to male subjects, female subjects had a 15 percent lower peak horizontal forehead acceleration (xi - Fij6o=7.61, p<0.01) and a 15 percent larger head extension angle (0 - Fli59=5.51, p<0.05). Despite awareness-related effects in the amplitude of the kinematic peaks, timing of these kinematic peaks in relation to the perturbation did not vary with subject awareness (Table 3.4). Gender, on the other hand, was related to the timing of seven of the eleven kinematic peaks 40 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (ms) Figure 3.3 Sample EMG and kinematic data from a single subject. Labeled hollow circles indicate kinematic peaks used in the analysis. The vertical scale bars are aligned with the onset of the perturbation and are equivalent to lg, 25 mm, 100 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 10 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x refers to the x-direction; subscript z refers to the z-direction; a, head angular acceleration; to, head angular velocity; 0, head angle. -a cu 00 00 ,CD CD c CD i- CD 03 .c ^ t: 03 \u00C2\u00A3 .2 > 1 O c 03 CD O CD 3 CD 03 (D cj ca to T3 CD SI fc* I 03 _0 .g . PH 3 co CD \u00E2\u0080\u00A2B M cS \"3 to \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 X w 2 2 \u00C2\u00A3 \"o \"3 O o * *~ Q* \u00C2\u00ABJ \"o a S ca p i \u00C2\u00AB 5 3 \u00C2\u00AB* \u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00BB \u00C2\u00BBi \u00E2\u0080\u00A2a u .a x 8 t3 * * s 2 c CU l-H T3 CD CJ CD CD oo 53 M a J cD co C o 00 HH q O HJ \"\u00C2\u00B0 JL, 2 3 ^ E \u00C2\u00ABJ CX \u00E2\u0080\u009E CD E o ft CS 13 CD S \"S O.W \u00C2\u00B0 a o Q \"e 53 w -a CD 03 t -CD CD <5 OJ ro -a co JD 53 -2 * 03 J-E-H 3 CN C O p \"1 CN Tt CN ro CN CN Tf MD Tt O r- oo ro \u00E2\u0080\u0094' CN -' d d oo OS O in in \u00C2\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u0094H d -H d d CN V) ro -H p co co ro ro ro ro (55) (52) (45) (92) CN CN oT CN -124 -146 ro ro i in r-CN i VO Os i T p Os~ in\" r-; oo in r~ CN d ro CN in CN ro as O ro o -H ro vo in r~ OS r-Tt r-d Tt VO oo IT) VO (-; oo Tt co ro ro iri ro O Os in ro t-; O t~ CN i d CN 1 CN 1 CN CN 1 d CN 1 CD D - -= -3 3 03 \u00C2\u00A3 CD 03 oo Tt ro Os CN CN CN d d d d d d N m in VO in CN in ro m ro d d d d d d oo o 00 o VO o vo o VO o O 'So d d d d d d N ro CN o CN OS vO CN d d i d d d d CN ro o Tt Os oo CN OO d d d d d d X 0.95 oo ro o ro vo o ro m in Tt ro Os VO CN r~ ro d d d d d d N CN in in VO m ro CN VO oo Tt -1 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 CN \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 in CN CN CN CN CN Tt 'oo d d d d d d N\" Tt VO Os in Tt VO m vO vo CN d i d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 p o d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 o CN CN ro CN CN CO in ro CN ro 'So d d d d d d ><\" 0.96 Tt vo ro Os CN CN T3 U T3 U >rised T3 -o CD CD >rised w U fc. CD Una! < Surp Una! < 41 VO in in * O r-o oo O \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ro CN CD fc. 03 < VO CO vq CD T3 e CD o CD T3 C CD a X CD fc. 03 < O d v a. * in o d v Q. 42 => fe .5 SO OI CO CO I T ) CN co oo in OS Os r - 00 CN so O oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf - t f co co S 2 O co \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i SO SO u-s - H 0 0 0 0 o 2 2 cn so in so in so >n so Os CN CN in SO in CN CN CN CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00C2\u00AB CO s\u00E2\u0080\u0094' r- in o OS r-\u00C2\u00BB so r- in SO in SD SO # oo oo in CO * in OS SO (IT) oo CN CO r\u00C2\u00BB CN in CN CO CO CO in 0 ? ^ O SO\" CN SO O so CN SO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf SO CO so in (II) m m cn SO SO CN \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f so o m o CN SO CO so * so * o oo m SO in so SO Os SO Os SO o SO oo m Os' m r~- O CO CN CO - o Os oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n oo CO Os r-Os o Os CO Os CN (N CO o oo SO OO o CO SO r~ SO X \u00C2\u00A3 \u00C2\u00A3 - H so so SO so SO SO * * Os CO * oo in in o o d v * X> fa trj tU C/3 T3 tU tu C3 E tu fe T3 tU T3 tU 3 00 fe < > O -a c CU O tu T3 C tu O X tu C3 o d v o. * * in O d v o. 43 considered. Though statistically significant, differences in timing between male and female subjects were relatively small - less than 15 ms for all seven of the parameters in Table 3.4. All of the peak angular head kinematics occurred earlier in male subjects than in female subjects. This same gender-related pattern was present in the forehead kinematics, which were partially influenced by the angular head kinematics. At the mastoid process, however, peak kinematics occurred later in male subjects than in female subjects. 3.3.3 Muscle Response The perturbation evoked a muscle response in all four muscle groups, particularly the SCM muscle (Figure 3.3). There were no significant differences between the onset latencies or RMS amplitudes of the left and right muscles and therefore the average response of the left and right muscles was used for the remainder of the analysis. The onset latencies of both neck muscles varied significantly with awareness (SCM: F 2 , 6 0 =ll . l , p<0.0001; PARA: F2,57=3.21, p<0.05) (Table 3.5). Post-hoc analyses indicated that SCM activation occurred an average of 7 ms later in surprised subjects than in the alerted (p=0.0035) and unalerted subjects (p=0.0002), and PARA activation occurred 5 ms later in surprised subjects than in the alerted subjects (p=0.036). The time of maximal RMS amplitude in the SCM muscle varied with awareness (F2,6o=3.54, p<0.05), and although these data contained outliers, a rank-based non-parametric ANOVA produced a similar awareness effect. Post-hoc analysis revealed that surprised subjects reached maximal EMG amplitude later than alerted subjects (p=0.048), but not significantly later than unalerted subjects (p=0.058). When averaged across awareness conditions, SCM activation occurred 5 ms later in male subjects than female subjects (Fij6o=13.9, p<0.001) and PARA activation occurred 3 ms later in male subjects than female subjects (Fi57=4.61, p<0.05) (Table 3.5). The delayed activation in male subjects relative to female subjects was further explored using a linear regression which included independent variables for gender, awareness level, height and mass. Both height and mass were eliminated from the regression in favour of the two discrete variables, a result that suggested the observed gender effect was not related to differences in size between the male and female subjects. The normalized EMG amplitude of the SCM muscles was significantly larger in male subjects than female subjects (Fli59=20.9, p<0.0001). In the PARA muscles, however, significant main effects for both awareness and gender were qualified by an awareness x gender interaction (F2,57=3.68, p<0.05). Post-hoc analysis showed that surprised males had a significantly larger EMG amplitude than alerted males (p=0.0T8), surprised females (p=0.006) and alerted females (p=0.012). 44 Table 3.5 Mean (S.D.) of EMG onset time, maximum RMS time, and normalized RMS magnitude. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (surprised, unalerted, alerted) and gender (female, male). Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 2-way ANOVAs using awareness and gender as independent variables. RMS, root-mean square; OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal; N , number of subjects in analysis. Onset (ms) Max RMS RMS Magnitude (ms) OO MAS SCM PARA SCM SCM PARA Female Surprised 70(13) 80(8) 77 (5) 80 (4) 119(18) 0.15 (0.07) 0.10(0.07) Unalerted 65 (7) 71(8) 68 (6) 77 (7) 106 (7) 0.21 (0.08) 0.16(0.08) Alerted 69(14) 79 (12) 69 (5) 76 (7) 104(11) 0.17(0.05) 0.11 (0.07) Male Surprised 74(10) 82(11) 81(7) 83 (4) 112(10) 0.42 (0.20) 0.29 (0.19) Unalerted 64 (9) 81(9) 74 (5) 82 (7) 109(13) 0.31 (0.14) 0.22 (0.15) Alerted 68(8) 75 (8) 76 (6) 78 (6) 111 (10) 0.35 (0.31) 0.11 (0.07) N 65 65 66 63 66 66 63 ANOVA F-statistics Aware 3.21* 3.54* 3.22* Gender 23 9*** 4.61* 20 9**** 7.82** Aware x Gender 3.68* * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, ****p<0.0001 45 3.4 Discussion The goal of this study was to examine how event awareness and temporal awareness affected the neck muscle and kinematic responses of seated subjects exposed only once to a whiplash-like perturbation. Event awareness was studied by comparing the response of a group of subjects who were deceived into thinking they would not be perturbed to the response of a group of subjects who were aware they would be perturbed. Within this latter group, some subjects knew exactly when they would be perturbed, whereas others knew only that a perturbation was imminent. This division of the event-aware subjects allowed the effect of temporal awareness to be simultaneously studied. The results of the present study indicated that event awareness affected the temporal development of the neck muscle response evoked by a whiplash-like perturbation. In both male and female subjects, activation of the SCM and PARA muscles occurred later in surprised subjects compared to both unalerted subjects, who were event aware but not temporally aware, and alerted subjects, who were both event and temporally aware. Since there was no difference in either the perturbation, the initial position or the onset times of the torso or head acceleration between the different awareness groups, this delayed neck muscle activation appeared to be directly related to event awareness. Similarly shortened onset latencies to reflex-evoking stimuli have been observed in warned reaction-time experiments (Silverstein et al., 1981) and have been attributed to changes in the membrane potential of sensory and motor neurons due to selective attention and motor preparation respectively (Brunia, 1992). The current results, therefore, suggested that the sensorimotor system of the alerted and unalerted subjects was facilitated by their awareness of an imminent perturbation and that this facilitation resulted in earlier activation of the neck muscles. This facilitation appeared to be similar in both the alerted and unalerted conditions, and suggested that knowledge of an imminent perturbation (event awareness) was a more important factor in producing a facilitated state than knowledge of the perturbation's precise timing (temporal awareness). Although awareness-related differences in muscle activation were present in both genders, awareness-related differences in the kinematic responses were gender specific. Peak horizontal mastoid acceleration (x2) was lower and peak retraction (rx) was higher in surprised female subjects than in other subject groups. In contrast to the lower linear acceleration observed in surprised female subjects, a larger angular acceleration (a2) was observed in surprised male subjects than in alerted male subjects. All three of these kinematic peaks occurred after neck muscle activation, a temporal pattern that suggested the observed differences in muscle activity were responsible for these kinematic differences. It was not clear from the data, however, how a similarly delayed SCM and PARA activation in surprised subjects of both genders produced kinematic differences that were gender specific. The lower forward mastoid acceleration (x2) and larger retraction (rx) in surprised 46 A - SCM Onset (ms) B - SCM Amplitude C - PARA Amplitude D - Mastoid X accel. (g) E - Retraction (mm) 0 -I , , , 0.0 -I , , , 0.0 -I , , , 0.0 -I , , , 0 S U A S U A S U A S U A S U A Figure 3.4 Summary of awareness-related differences (mean \u00C2\u00B1 SD) that, when combined, suggested a mechanism explaining why female subjects responded differently in surprised conditions. See text for a complete description. SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscles; PARA, cervical paraspinal muscles; RMS, root mean square; F, female; M , male; S, surprised; U, unalerted; A, alerted. female subjects suggested a weaker muscle contraction in surprised female subjects than in the other female subjects. Conversely, the larger angular head acceleration in flexion in surprised male subjects suggested a stronger muscle contraction in surprised male subjects than in the other male subjects. Despite these expectations, the analysis of EMG amplitude for the SCM muscles revealed only a strong gender difference, and the analysis of EMG amplitude for the PARA muscles showed that the response of surprised male subjects was larger than in alerted male subjects, but not larger than in unalerted male subjects (Table 3.5). Further analysis of the SCM amplitude data, however, showed that the observed gender difference was most pronounced in the surprised condition and that the large variability in the amplitude data, particularly in the male subjects, may have obscured a possible interaction effect similar to that observed in the PARA muscles (Table 3.5, Figure 3.4B, C). Anthropometry differences between subjects in the three awareness groups was another possible explanation for the gender-specific kinematic response, however, no significant within-gender height or mass differences were present between the awareness groups. Without a clear link between the awareness-related, but gender-neutral, differences in the muscle response and the awareness-related, but gender-specific, differences in the kinematic response, the current data could only be used to postulate a mechanism by which surprised subjects respond differently than alerted or unalerted subjects. Event aware subjects, even though relaxed, prepared for the perturbation by facilitating the sensorimotor systems responsible for the reflexive neck muscle contraction. The sensorimotor systems of the unaware subjects, however, were not similarly facilitated and therefore neck muscle activation in these subjects was delayed (Figure 3.4A). 47 It was postulated that the surprised male subjects accommodated this delayed activation by increasing the magnitude of their SCM and PARA contractions (Figure 3.4B, C). This compensatory response produced levels of mastoid acceleration (Figure 3.4D) and head retraction (Figure 3.4E) that were similar, but levels of angular head acceleration that were higher, than those observed in aware male subjects. Surprised female subjects, on the other hand, did not compensate for the delayed onset with a larger muscle contraction and this resulted in both a lower forward mastoid acceleration and a larger head retraction movement. The current data, though providing the foundation for this proposed explanation, lacked the statistical power to determine post-hoc whether the postulated gender x awareness interactions were actually present in both the SCM and PARA activation levels. Future work based on the mechanism proposed here could explicitly hypothesize these effects and their directions, and could therefore use planned comparisons rather than post-hoc testing to establish this link. Such planned comparisons run on the current data showed that the postulated effect was present, however, could not be relied upon because the effect was not specifically hypothesized. Though unexpected, the observation of a 25 percent larger peak retraction in only surprised female subjects was consistent with two aspects of the whiplash literature: first, females have a higher risk of whiplash injury than males (O'Neill et al., 1972; Balla, 1980; Kahane, 1982; Lovsund et al., 1988; Otremski et al., 1989; Jakobsson et al., 2000); and second, unprepared subjects have both more symptoms and more severe symptoms than prepared subjects (Sturzenegger et al., 1994; Sturzenegger et al., 1995). A larger retraction would cause larger strains in the ligamentous tissues of the cervical spine. If the increased retraction observed here were distributed uniformly over the cervical spine, about 1 mm of additional translation would occur between each pair of cervical vertebra. Based on data presented by Siegmund et al. (2000b), this additional motion would increase the maximum principal strain in the facet joint capsular ligaments by about 0.03, which was about 4 to 27 percent of the strains reported by these authors to cause sub-catastrophic failures in these ligaments. The cervical facet joints have also been isolated as the source of pain in about half of a population with chronic whiplash pain (Lord et al., 1996). Though in need of additional investigation, the results of the current study provide a possible biomechanical explanation for why unprepared female occupants have an increased risk of whiplash injury. Although the current data provided incomplete evidence of why kinematic differences were observed between subjects aware and unaware of the perturbation, it clearly showed that unprepared subjects responded differently to a whiplash-like perturbation than did subjects whose level of awareness was similar to that present in most, if not all, previous whiplash experiments using human subject. This finding calls into question the applicability of the muscle, kinematic and, perhaps most importantly, clinical response data of all previously-conducted whiplash experiments using human 48 subjects to study real whiplash collisions. Based on the differences observed here, it may be possible to interpret the muscle and kinematic data of previous studies to determine how their observed responses might have been different had their subjects been truly surprised. Post-hoc interpretation of the transient clinical symptoms experienced by subjects in these previous experiments will likely be more difficult. Given the larger retraction observed in surprised female subjects, previous reports of clinical symptoms generated in whiplash experiments may underestimate the risk of whiplash injury in real collisions. 3.4.1 Comparison to Previous Studies None of the EMG or kinematic variables examined here exhibited a significant post-hoc difference between the alerted and unalerted conditions. This finding was at odds with results reported by Kumar et al. (2000), who observed a significant difference in anterior head acceleration between subjects who knew both the timing and intensity of a whiplash-like perturbation and subjects who were deprived of both visual and aural information, but nonetheless knew a perturbation would occur. A direct comparison between the previous and current data may, however, be invalid. Despite a similar peak sled acceleration, peak torso acceleration in the previous study was reached 238 to 263 ms after perturbation onset (compared to 78 \u00C2\u00B1 9 ms in the current study) and peak horizontal forehead acceleration in the previous study was reached 284 to 376 ms after perturbation onset (compared to 170 \u00C2\u00B1 12 ms in the current study). The reason for the delayed kinematics reported by Kumar et al. (2000) was not clear, but could be related to differences between the molded plastic seat used by these researchers and the automobile seat used in the current study. The current data were consistent with results reported by Magnusson et al. (1999), who observed no difference in the muscle activation times between subjects aware and not aware of the exact timing of a perturbation. In addition, the onset latencies of torso acceleration (20 \u00C2\u00B1 2 ms), head acceleration (29 \u00C2\u00B1 5 ms) and SCM activation (74 \u00C2\u00B1 7 ms) observed in the current data were similar to the 17, 36 and 74 ms latencies, respectively, reported by Magnusson et al. (1999). As in the current study, Magnusson et al. (1999) also used an automotive seat. These similarities in the initial kinematic and muscle responses between studies were remarkable given the large difference in perturbation pulse characteristics used in the two studies. In the current study, a peak acceleration of 1.52 g was achieved in 16.3 ms, and produced a velocity change of about 0.5 m/s over a duration of about 60 ms (average acceleration was about 0.9 g) (Figure 3.2). In the study conducted by Magnusson et al. (1999), a peak acceleration of about 0.4 g was achieved in about 150 ms, and produced a velocity change of about 0.6 m/s over a duration of about 250 ms (average acceleration=0.24 g). The similar SCM activation times between studies suggested that large 49 differences in the early components of the perturbation were equally effective in triggering a reflexive muscle response. Gender differences observed in the muscle and kinematic responses of male and female subjects in the current study were consistent with previous studies. Brault et al. (2000) also observed an earlier neck muscle activation in female subjects than male subjects in staged rear-end collisions, as did Foust et al. (1973) using a direct tug on the head rather than a whiplash perturbation. Gender-related kinematic differences were also similar, though not identical, to those observed previously at higher perturbation intensities using the same seat (Siegmund et al., 1997). Kinematic differences between studies appeared to be due to the absence of a head restraint in the present study and contact with the head restraint present in previous work. A potential limitation of the current study was the relatively low perturbation magnitude used here compared to that used in most other whiplash experiments. Due to the unknown effect of the deceived condition, however, a low intensity pulse which was capable of evoking a neck muscle response without inducing excessive and potentially injurious loads was required. A previously-observed gradation of both the muscle response (Brault et al., 2000) and head and torso kinematics (Siegmund et al., 1997) with pulse intensity suggested that the effects observed here would also be present at greater perturbation intensities. Another potential limitation of this study was its inability to truly reproduce the unprepared state of individuals in a relaxed vehicle environment. The results observed here indicated that the surprised condition was different from the two aware conditions, however, it remains unknown how effectively the surprised condition used here mimicked the state of an unprepared individual driving an automobile. Future work may wish to quantify motoneurone excitability in both a relaxed vehicle environment and a pre-perturbation environment to quantify this effect. In summary, the data presented in this study showed that surprised subjects, and in particular surprised female subjects, responded differently to a whiplash-like perturbation than did alerted and unalerted subjects. A mechanism by which event awareness altered reflex excitability, which then led to delayed muscle activation and ultimately to different kinematic responses in surprised and aware subjects was proposed. Additional research is needed, however, to determine whether the postulated difference in neck muscle amplitude between female and male subjects actually exists under surprised conditions. The increased retraction observed in surprised female subjects may explain previous findings in the literature regarding increased risk of whiplash injury in both females and in individuals unprepared for a rear-end collision. 50 3.5 Bridging Summary The results of the current study showed that a difference in the neck muscle response between alerted, unalerted, and surprised subjects exposed to whiplash-like perturbations existed. The hypothesis underlying this experiment was therefore accepted. The results showed differences in the muscle and kinematic responses related to event awareness, but not to temporal awareness; a finding which suggested that depriving subjects in whiplash experiments of information regarding the precise timing of a perturbation may not be an effective method of simulating the unprepared state of vehicle occupants in advance of real whiplash collisions. Having established that awareness plays a potentially important role in altering the response to a whiplash-like perturbation, the next question addressed in this thesis was whether and how much the response adapted over multiple exposures. For the next chapter, the aware subjects from the current experiment (both alerted and unalerted subjects) underwent ten additional perturbations of the same intensity to quantify how habituation affected the magnitude of the muscle and kinematic responses. Subjects from the deceived group were not included in the habituation experiment because the deception used in their first perturbation could not be replicated over the next ten perturbations. The deceived subjects nonetheless underwent the same habituation process so that they could be used in subsequent experiments. 51 C H A P T E R 4 RESPONSE HABITUATION TO MULTIPLE PERTURBATIONS 4.1 Introduction A rapid attenuation of the reflex response to sequentially-presented stimuli has been observed in postural reflexes (Nashner, 1976; Keshner et al., 1987; Hansen et al., 1988; Woollacott et al., 1988; Allum et al., 1992; Bisdorff et al., 1994; Timmann and Horak, 1997) and startle reflexes in humans (Landis and Hunt, 1939; Davis, 1984, Brown et al., 1991b). This attenuation, called habituation, is a centrally generated process that results in a generalized decrement in response magnitude to repetitive stimulation (Harris, 1943). It typically consists of a rapid initial decrement which becomes progressively slower with the number of stimulus exposures. Habituation to platform perturbations in the study of standing posture have been shown to occur in one to three exposures (Woollacott et al., 1988; Allum et al., 1992; Timmann and Horak, 1997). In both acoustic startle and free-fall experiments, 30 to 50 percent reductions in the magnitude of electromyographic (EMG) activity in facial, neck and shoulder muscles have been observed by the second or third exposure (Bisdorff et al., 1994; Valls-Sole et al., 1997). In recognition of the rapid transient changes in muscle and kinematic responses as a result of habituation, many studies of reflexes have used practice trials or discarded initial trials to achieve a stabilized response in subjects (Horak et al., 1989; Allum et al., 1992; Timmann and Horak, 1997; Chong et al., 1999). If, however, the initial response is of primary interest, then habituation is a potential source of experimental error and must be accommodated by limiting the number of exposures to those before significant habituation occurs. In the study of whiplash injury biomechanics using human subjects, many studies have used either repeated exposures or practice trials prior to acquiring their data (Severy et al., 1955; Mertz and Patrick, 1967; Gutierrez, 1978; McConnell et al., 1993; Geigl et al., 1994; Szabo et al., 1994; McConnell et al., 1995; Ono and Kanno, 1996; Szabo and Welcher, 1996; Ono et al., 1997; Siegmund et al., 1997; Davidsson et al., 1998; Pope et al., 1998; van den Kroonenberg et al., 1998; Kaneoka et al., 1999; Magnusson et al., 1999). Habituation has only been considered in one study - and then only tangentially. Severy et al. (1955) attributed a lower peak head acceleration in the second exposure of one subject to a \"conditioned muscle reflex.. .acquired from his initial experience.\" Most other studies have not explicitly reported whether practice trials were conducted, and some studies have not reported the number of repeated exposures to each subject. The muscle and kinematic data reported in these studies, therefore, might not be representative of individuals in real collisions where only one exposure occurred. The minimal or absent cervical paraspinal muscle response observed in experienced subjects exposed to whiplash-like perturbations (Gutierrez, 1978; Ono et al., 1997) and 52 the clear presence of this response in novice subjects at similar perturbation intensities (Brault et al., 2000) suggests that habituation may have contaminated some of the published human subject data. In addition to the possible presence of habituation in some of the published whiplash-biomechanics data, different levels of warning regarding the exact time of the perturbation have been used. Information regarding the timing of a low-intensity whiplash-like perturbation has been shown to both affect and not affect the muscle and kinematic responses of repeatedly-exposed subjects (Magnusson et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 2000; Kumar et al., 2001). The question of whether precise knowledge of perturbation timing affects the magnitude of the response after habituation or the habituation process itself remains unanswered. The goal of this study was to quantify the effect of habituation on the muscle and kinematic responses during multiple, sequential, whiplash-like perturbations and the degree to which the process of habituation was affected by awareness regarding the exact timing of the perturbation. Two levels of awareness were used: alerted subjects, who knew the exact time of the perturbation, and unalerted subjects, who knew that a perturbation would occur, but not its exact time. Based on previous studies in which the habituation of reflexive responses has been observed, it was hypothesized that the muscle responses of subjects exposed to sequential whiplash-like perturbations would habituate, and that changes in the muscle response would result in changes in the kinematic response. Previous studies have also shown a gender difference in the amplitude of the muscle and kinematic response to whiplash perturbations (Siegmund et al., 1997; Brault et al., 2000). To also assess whether gender-specific changes related to habituation occur, a similar number of female and male subjects were tested. In addition to identifying the number of perturbations that a subject can undergo before significant response changes occur, the current data might identify features of the initial response that improve our understanding of whiplash biomechanics and injury. A preliminary report of this study has been previously published in abstract form (Siegmund et al., 2001a). 4.2 Methods 4.2.1 Subjects Forty-four subjects participated in the experiment. Physical characteristics for the subjects are given in Table 4.1. The subjects had no history of whiplash injury, medical conditions that impair sensory or motor function, or prolonged neck or back pain in the previous three years. All subjects gave their informed consent and were paid a nominal amount for their participation. The use of human subjects for this experiment was approved by the university's Ethics Review Board and the study conformed with the Declaration of Helsinki. 53 Table 4.1 Mean (S.D.) of subject age and physical characteristics. Female Male n 23 21 Age, yrs Height, cm Mass, kg 23 (4) 165 (6) 60 (9) 28 (6) 174 (8) 78(18) 4.2.2 Instrumentation Electromyographic (EMG) activity in the orbicularis oculi (OO), masseter (MAS), sternocleidomastoid (SCM) and cervical paraspinal (PARA) muscles was recorded bilaterally using 10 mm pre-gelled surface electrodes (H69P, Kendall-LTP, Huntington Beach, CA) and an Octopus AMT-8 amplifier (Bortec, Calgary, AB). Two uniaxial accelerometers (Kistler 8302B20S1; \u00C2\u00B120g, Amherst, NY) and a single uniaxial angular rate sensor (ATA Sensors ARS-04E; \u00C2\u00B1100 rad/s, Albuquerque, NM) were strapped tightly to the midline of a subject's forehead, immediately above the glabella. The sensitive axes of the accelerometers were mutually orthogonal and oriented to measure horizontal (x') and vertical (z') acceleration in the mid-sagittal plane (Figure 4.1). The rotational axis of the angular rate sensor was oriented mediolaterally to measure flexion and extension motion in the sagittal plane. In some subjects, torso acceleration was measured using an uniaxial accelerometer (Kistler 8302B20S1; \u00C2\u00B120g, Amherst, NY) applied with adhesive over the manubrium about 2 cm below its superior margin. Sled acceleration was measured using an uniaxial accelerometer (Sensotec JTF3629-05; \u00C2\u00B110g, Columbus, OH) oriented horizontally along the axis of motion. Displacement was measured using an Optotrak motion analysis system (Northern Digital, Waterloo, ON) with markers placed over the left mastoid process and midline at the subject's forehead, vertex of the head, manubrium and C7 spinous process (Figure 4.1). A sixth marker was placed on the left seat hinge. A force transducer (Artech S-Beam SS20210, \u00C2\u00B12 kN, Riverside, CA) was used to measure reaction loads during normalizing contractions of the SCM and PARA muscles. EMG signals were bandpass filtered at 10 Hz to 1 kHz and transducer signals were low-pass filtered at 1 kHz before being simultaneously sampled at 2 kHz and stored for subsequent analysis. Optotrak data were acquired at 200 Hz per marker. 4.2.3 Test Procedures Subjects were seated in an automobile seat obtained from the front passenger location of a 1991 Honda Accord. The head restraint was removed from the top of the seat back to eliminate the 54 < Acceleration direction Figure 4.1 Schematic of the test configuration showing the locations of the Optotrak markers (shaded circles), the lab reference frame (X, Z) and the head reference frame (x\ z'). The initial orientation of the head reference frame was determined by how the head band fit the subject and varied between 12 \u00C2\u00B1 4 deg relative to the lab reference frame. -1 100 Time (ms) 200 300 Properties Mean (S.D.) Peak acceleration (g) 1.51 (0.02) Time to peak acceleration (ms) 16.5 (0.9) Pulse duration (ms) 59.9 (0.2) Speed change (m/s) 0.498 (0.003) Average acceleration (g) 0.898 (0.004) Figure 4.2 Sample acceleration pulse and descriptive statistics of selected pulse properties. 55 potential for an externally applied load to the head during the perturbation. The seat was mounted on a custom fabricated sled powered by a feedback-controlled linear induction motor (Kollmorgen IC55-100A7, Kommack, NY). The sled generated no pre-perturbation signals, either audible or mechanical, which subjects could use to predict onset of the perturbation. To install and connect some of the instrumentation, subjects were seated on the sled about 15 minutes before their first perturbation. This period of time allowed the subjects sufficient time to adopt a comfortable seated posture. Prior to testing, subjects were instructed to sit normally, face forward, rest their forearms on their lap and to relax their face and neck muscles. Each subject was exposed to eleven perturbations which accelerated the subject horizontally forward (Figure 4.2). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: alerted or unalerted. Prior to each perturbation, subjects in the alerted group received a countdown consisting of two auditory tones (1000 Hz, 80 dB, 40 ms duration) spaced 1 s apart. The perturbation then occurred 1 s after the second tone, coincident with the expected time of a third tone had one been presented. Subjects in the unalerted group were told to expect their first perturbation within 60 seconds of the start of the experiment and then received a perturbation about 15 seconds later. The median time between the first and second perturbations of all subjects was 2.2 minutes (range 1.2 to 9.7). The time between the remaining ten perturbations varied randomly (uniform distribution) between 20 and 30 seconds. Subjects did not receive a practice or demonstration perturbation prior to their first perturbation. Prior to the above protocol, seated subjects performed sub-maximal isometric contractions in flexion and extension to generate normalizing data for the SCM and PARA muscles respectively. A strap attached to the load cell was placed around a subject's head and its length adjusted to ensure the subject's head was neutrally positioned. The strap was located immediately above the glabella for flexion contractions and at the height of the external occipital protuberance for extension contractions. Subjects were instructed to generate a force of 50 N with visual feedback, first in flexion and then in extension. EMG and load cell data were acquired for 5 s during each contraction. 4.2.4 Data Reduction A subject's initial position was determined from the Optotrak data immediately preceding the perturbation. Initial head position was defined in the laboratory reference frame using the horizontal (X-axis; positive forward) and vertical (Z-axis; positive downward) positions of the mastoid process relative to the seat hinge (Figure 4.1). Initial head angle in the sagittal plane was determined from the forehead and vertex markers and reported relative to the positive X-axis (+0y rotation corresponded to extension). Initial torso position was defined using the horizontal and vertical positions of the midpoint between the manubrium and C7 spinous process markers relative to the seat hinge, and torso 56 angle relative to the horizontal plane was determined using the same two markers. The RMS accuracy of the position measurements from the Optotrak system was less than 0.1 mm, and based on marker separation, the RMS accuracy of the calculated angles was less than 0.1 degrees. The onset of head and torso movement, amplitude of peak head accelerations and the time of the peak head and torso accelerations were determined directly from the accelerometer data. The algorithm used to determine onset is developed in Appendix A. Forehead acceleration data were not resolved into the lab reference frame. Peak retraction, defined as the maximum horizontal translation of the top of the cervical spine rearward relative to the bottom of the cervical spine, was estimated using the maximum relative horizontal displacement in the lab reference frame between the Optotrak markers on the mastoid and manubrium. Peak angular velocity of the head was determined from the angular rate sensor data after it had been digitally compensated to reduce the sensor's high-pass frequency to 0.002 Hz (Laughlin, 1998). Angular acceleration was then computed by finite differences (5 ms window) from the compensated angular velocity data. Total head angular displacement was determined from the Optotrak markers located at the forehead and vertex. Horizontal and vertical accelerations at the mastoid process were computed by double differentiating the Optotrak data. This technique produced results within O.lg of the values computed using a rigid body transformation of the linear and angular accelerations measured at the forehead and was preferred because it relied on data from only one Optotrak marker rather than data from two accelerometers, an angular rate sensor and two Optotrak markers needed for the rigid body calculation. Mastoid accelerations were computed in the lab reference frame. Pre-stimulus noise in each channel of the EMG data was quantified using the root mean squared (RMS) amplitude of the EMG signal over the 100 ms preceding the perturbation. EMG onset was defined as the time at which the RMS amplitude, computed from the raw EMG data using a moving 20 ms window, reached 10 percent of its maximum value and was then confirmed visually. For each muscle, the RMS amplitude of the EMG signal was calculated for the interval between EMG onset and peak head extension angle. The corresponding pre-stimulus noise for each muscle was then subtracted from this quantity. The SCM and PARA muscle EMG amplitudes were normalized by the RMS amplitude obtained during the 5 s sub-maximal contraction for the corresponding muscle. 4.2.5 Statistical Analysis For each kinematic dependent variable, a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences related to level of awareness (alerted, unalerted), gender (female, male) and number of trials (one through eleven) as the repeated measure. Electromyographic variables were first assessed using a four-way ANOVA with muscle side (left, right) included as a second repeated 57 measures variable. After confirming that there were no statistically significant effects related to muscle side, the mean of the left and right muscle data were computed and analyzed using a three-way ANOVA for awareness, gender and trial only. All statistical tests were performed using Statistica (v.5.1, Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) and a significance level of a=0.05. Post-hoc comparisons amongst the eleven trial levels were performed using a Tukey's honest significant difference test. A Scheffe test was not used because once habituation was identified, an overly conservative test might mask habituation and produce artificial confidence in trials where significant habituation had occurred. Post-hoc testing of interaction terms that included the repeated-measures trial variable was performed by running a separate two-way ANOVA on each trial to ascertain which trials were responsible for the interaction effect. Instrumentation problems resulted in incomplete data for some trials. Because of the repeated-measures nature of the analysis, a lost trial potentially eliminated that subject's entire data set from the analysis. To minimize the effect of lost data, subject data were deleted on a variable-by-variable basis if lost. Optotrak data were lost in one subject due to synchronization problems. A mastoid marker was not present for the first subject, and other mastoid data were occasionally deleted due to marker dropout, excessive vibration or, in the case of vertical mastoid acceleration, the absence of an initial upward component to the acceleration. A grounding problem contaminated the EMG data of one subject and onset could not be reliably determined for OO, MAS and PARA muscles of three subjects due to excessive sled-induced noise. 4.3 Results Changes in many of the dependent variables were observed over the eleven trials. In all cases, post-hoc testing showed no significant variation over the last 5 trials and therefore the descriptive data reported in the tables were limited to the first trial and the average of the last five trials. Descriptive data for each variable and each trial are included in Appendix B. 4.3.1 Initial Position Significant changes were observed over the eleven trials in all six variables used to define a subject's initial position (Table 4.2). Averaged across all subjects, the initial vertical position of the mastoid process shifted 3 mm downward (Fi0,38o=23.7, p<0.0001) over the course of eleven perturbations. Post-hoc analysis revealed that this vertical displacement occurred entirely between the first and third trials. The initial horizontal position of the mastoid process was significantly different between trials (Fi0,38o=4.00, p<0.0001), however it did not shift uniformly in one direction. The average horizontal position of the mastoid moved forward over the first three trials and then rearward 58 Table 4.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (unalerted, alerted), gender (female, male) and trial number (1 to 11). Trial data are summarized here for the first trial and the average of the last five trials only. Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. Lower portion of table summarizes the results (F-statistics) of separate 3-way ANOVAs using awareness, gender and trial number as independent variables. The eleven trials were considered separately in the ANOVA. X , horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis; A, awareness; G, gender; T, trial. Mastoid process Head Manubrium-C7 midpoint Torso X Z angle X Z Angle (mm) (mm) (deg) (mm) (mm) (deg) First Trial Female Unalerted 11(16) -642 (23) 7.1 (1.9) 21(14) -552(19) -15.9 (4.1) Alerted 7(19) -641 (35) 7.9 (3.4) 21(11) -559 (28) -17.6 (4.0) Male Unalerted 28(12) -661 (36) 9.4 (4.0) 38 (6) -572 (35) -15.3 (3.3) Alerted 21 (18) -672 (25) 9.6 (4.8) 28(15) -584 (25) -17.2 (5.3) Last 5 trials Female Unalerted 9(14) -639 (22) 8.7 (4.3) 17(11) -549(17) -15.4 (5.3) Alerted 6(18) -637 (36) 9.1 (3.6) 16(10) -557 (29) -16.3 (4.4) Male Unalerted 26 (20) -658 (36) 8.9 (7.3) 37 (12) -570 (35) -15.2 (3.7) Alerted 17 (16) -668 (26) 10.7 (5.6) 25 (16) -582 (24) -16.3 (4.9) N 42 42 43 38 38 38 ANOVA F-statistics Aware Gender 7.76** 6.90* 13.5*** 6.66* Trial 4 00**** 23 7#**# 2.08* 7 5 -7* * * * 8.35**** 5.12**** Aware x Gender Aware x Trial Gender x Trial A x G x T *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001 59 over the remaining trials. As a result, the post-hoc analysis revealed that no one trial was significantly different from the first trial, however the horizontal position of the mastoid position in the third trial was significantly further forward than in each of the last four trials (p<0.05). Despite achieving statistical significance, the average initial head angle deceased (was flexed further forward) by less than one degree over the eleven trials (Fio,39o=2.08, p=0.025). No one trial was significantly different from the first trial. The average position of the midpoint between the manubrium and the C7 spinous process shifted 3 mm rearward (F10,34o=7.57, p<0.0001) and 2 mm downward (Fi0,34o=8.35, p<0.0001) over the eleven perturbations. The horizontal position of the manubrium-C7 midpoint was not significantly different from the first trial until the sixth trial, whereas the vertical displacement occurred entirely between the first and second trials. Like head angle, the initial manubrium-C7 angle was flexed further forward by less than one degree over the eleven perturbations (F]0,34o=5.12, p<0.0001), although no one trial was significantly different from the first trial. A gender difference consistent with the male subjects being larger than the female subjects was observed in the four variables describing initial position, but not in the two variables describing initial head and torso orientation. The mastoid process of the average male subject was located 15 mm forward (Fi,38=7.76, p=0.008) and 25 mm above (Fii3g=6.90, p=0.012) the mastoid process of the average female subject. The midpoint between the manubrium and C7 markers of the average male subject was 12 mm forward (Fi,34=13.5, p=0.0008) and 22 mm above (Fi34=6.66, p=0.014) the same point on the average female subject. 4.3.2 Kinematic Response The perturbation produced a stereotypical response in all subjects (Figure 4.3). The torso was accelerated forward first, followed by the head, which was accelerated linearly upward and forward, and angularly into extension. During their first perturbation, all subjects responded by rapidly restoring their upright head position. During later trials, some subjects altered their response and did not attempt to restore their upright head position until much later. In these subjects, head angle and retraction remained large for a considerable period of time after the perturbation (see middle panel of Figure 4.3). In most subjects who responded in this manner, a clear peak was still visible in both the retraction and head angle data (as seen in Figure 4.3), however, in six subjects, no clearly defined peak was present in one or more of their later trials (Figure 4.4). Since their response represented an extreme adaptation to the stimulus, these six subjects were removed from the data set and the remaining 38 subjects were used for the rest of the analysis. 60 Trial 1 Trial 3 Trial 11 / 00 r I L _ _ MAS | r \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\u00E2\u0080\u0094 0 500 0 500 0 .500 Time (ms) Figure 4.3 Sample data from the first, third and eleventh trial of a single subject who exhibited habituation of their muscle response and corresponding changes in their kinematic response. Labeled hollow circles in the first trial represent kinematic peaks used for subsequent analysis. Similarly-located circles in the other trials highlight changes due to habituation. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to lg, 25 mm, 100 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 10 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; M A S , masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; a, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 0, head angle. 61 Angle (deg) Retraction (mm) - i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 500 0 500 Time (ms) Time (ms) Figure 4.4 Head angle (left) and retraction (right) data for trials 1 (top) through 11 (bottom) of a subject who adopted a different response strategy. The data indicated that the subject did not attempt to immediately re-establish an upright head position after the perturbation. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to 10 deg and 10 mm. 62 Neither the onset of torso acceleration nor the time of peak torso acceleration varied with awareness, gender or number of trials. Averaged across all conditions and trials, the onset of torso acceleration occurred 20 \u00C2\u00B1 2 ms after the onset of the perturbation and peak torso acceleration occurred 77 \u00C2\u00B1 11 ms after the onset of the perturbation. Evidence of head acceleration appeared first in the vertically-mounted accelerometer at the forehead and the analysis of these onset times showed a significant awareness x trial interaction effect (Fi0,34o=2.00, p=0.033). Post-hoc testing revealed that an awareness effect developed after the fourth trial. Over the first four trials, the average time from perturbation onset to head acceleration onset was 29 \u00C2\u00B1 5 ms. In the remaining seven trials, the overall average remained the same, however, the onset of head acceleration occurred an average of 4 ms later in alerted subjects than in unalerted subjects. Amongst the peak kinematic parameters used to characterize the response (labeled with hollow circles in Figure 4.3), only the positive (downward) peak in the vertical forehead acceleration (z2) did not exhibit a significant variation in amplitude with repeated exposure (Table 4.3). Relative to the first trial, repeated exposure to the perturbation produced a decrease in the peak amplitudes of horizontal forehead acceleration (x i , Fio,34o=42.2, p<0.0001), horizontal mastoid acceleration (x2, Fio,3io=3.28, p=0.0005), downward mastoid acceleration (z4, Fi0,3oo=14.5, p<0.0001) and the angular head acceleration in flexion (a 2, Fi0,34o=2.06, p=0.027). In contrast, an increase in the peak amplitude with repeated exposure was observed in the vertical forehead acceleration (zi , Fi0,34o=4.13, p<0.0001), retraction (rx, F]0,29o=8.47, p<0.0001), head angular acceleration in extension (cti, Fi0,34o=3.10, p=0.0009), head angular velocity in extension (to, Fi0,34o=8.46, p<0.0001) and peak head extension angle (0, Fi0,33o=l 1.1, p<0.0001). A variable pattern, which consisted of an increased amplitude by the third trial followed by a return to baseline, was observed in the initial upward acceleration of the mastoid process (z3, Fi0,29o=3.36, p=0.0004). The normalized habituation pattern for these variables and the percentage change between the first trial and the average of the last five trials are summarized in Figure 4.5. The statistical analysis of two amplitude variables - horizontal forehead acceleration (xi) and retraction (rx) also produced significant awareness x trial interaction terms. Post-hoc examination of these data showed that there were no awareness effects present in any one of the eleven trials, but that awareness affected the rate of habituation over the first three trials for peak horizontal forehead acceleration (xi) and the first four trials for peak retraction (rx). In both variables, habituation occurred more rapidly in the unalerted subjects than in the alerted subjects. The initial upward acceleration of the forehead (zi) was the only parameter in which peak amplitude varied with gender (F1>34=4.99, p<0.032). Across all trials and awareness conditions, the peak amplitude of the upward forehead acceleration was 18 percent larger in male subjects than in female subjects (male: 63 o o s o _2 < f-1 .S 3 S CO* ro i n CN CN ~1 T t ro T t CO r O Ov* vo IT) G m oo* -< d d d d d d CN v q v q i/-> CO co co co co ro co co (53) uo* T t T t G-ov* CN CN* CN* T t CO O * T t -145 co CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CN Ov Ov i CN CO OV CO O T t Ov \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CO CN CO VO CN CN o * CN G O * CN Co* m r- Ov r-CO vo vo o 00 o oo VO >/-> oo Ov IT) T t Ov o CO CO CO CN T t VD CO T t TT T t v q Ov v q v q IT) d CN i CN d CN i Ov i CO CN i CN CN CO CN d CN i >o CO oT T ? CN o* u-> CN Tt* CN* oT o d d d d d d d d VD VO >/-> VO CO CO T t VO ro T t CO oo CN d d d d d d d d o* vo\" o oo o o Ov* o oo O oo o d d d d d d d d OV Ov CN CN oo Ov o CN T t CN Ov d d d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d i \u00C2\u00A9 * T t CN Ov* CO CN r^* CN G G d d d d d d d d >/-> co o CO p CN CN vo O oo p CN vo T t CN 00 CO ro* Tt* CO CN* CO G T t d d d d d d d d co v q T t v q o v q Ov T t co T t CN T t CO CN CN CN CO T t VO* G CN Oo* d d d d d d d d o VO T t VO o r- T t f - VO Ov VO o OO d d d d d d d d CO oo CO oo CO oo CO ro co CN* CN CO co CO T t T f CN Oo\" CN d d d d d d d d o CN o CO CN T t 00 VO oo Ov 00 oo oo \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 -* \u00E2\u0080\u00941 d d d d T3 B - a B T3 B T3 T J \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 a B fc. U fc. U u u fc. /\u00E2\u0080\u00A2> cy5 03 J Femal Male as < o - a c O * * vO T t * VO O T t oo * * T t VO * oo CN ov 5 ?o T t \u00E2\u0080\u0094I T t # * * * CN CN T t oo T J c u a X < & > .2 O Z 03 ^ cS 03 ^ < CD I \u00C2\u00B0 Cu ^ CD \u00E2\u0080\u00A2< C/3 ^ UUH CD o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00C2\u00A3 Io 3 CJ \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\" . \u00E2\u0080\u0094 CD \"r* \u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00AB Cu CD 3 B cn CD .2 u c- _ 6 3 o3 03 CD CD \u00E2\u0080\u00A24-1 T-\u00C2\u00BB O C O C o CJ CD CD CD c 6J0| O* CD 3 \"5 03 03 03 I I CD CD - 3 W u q-u CD O \"T3 CD Q w) 0 0 ; ~ * s S T t \"2 T t t ; CD S 3 03 5 H 3 3 \u00C2\u00A7 .2 -9 > C O , S \u00C2\u00A3, ^ C H m a o u g 3 - 3 W o h S o C O C O CM _\u00C2\u00A3) CD U . CD O 03 ^Q 1 1 5 3 03 co > <4-, S c 3 O CD 3 co CH 3 '\u00C2\u00A3 .5 Z tf CO o oo CN o CN CN CN* CO r~ tf oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f oo O Os in oo SO Os CN OS >/-> CO \u00C2\u00A7 o O CN* O* tf CO so CO Os CN SO CN in CO CO tf CO oo CN o O tf\" SO oo so* oo VO CO oo in m in o CN SO CN so in in oo SO~ oo CN o oo o CN o 00 Os o tf o o o oo CN CN CN CN, SO\" tf CO o CO o* CN o CN ON tf O so oo in 00 SO ro SO oo OO tf CN Os\" CN tf CN-CO tf CN oo CN, tf CN CN CO CN in Os CN n o OS so \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf in so m CN r-\u00C2\u00BB tf SO tf SO oo m o CO CN H tf\" in So oo oo CO Os oo oo Os in Os CN OS CO Os so Os tf^ CO \u00C2\u00A3 in OO so* Os* tf CN Os so SO m so oo CN tf SO -a B c O \"3 PH CD 4\u00E2\u0080\u0094> H. CD < -a CD w H. _u 03 C P u 03 -o H. JJ 03 C P 03 CO oo co oo CO oo CO CO CO tf CO CO CO m CO oo CO oo CO oo CO SO * oo * o * O tf SO SO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f Os SO O so oo co # CO in co * * * CN SO co * i n CN .23 03 3 * to <^ PH 0 o o < 0.899 (0.002) g 59.9 (0.1) ms . 1.50 (0.02) g 16.6 (0.7) ms A At ap to 0.477 (0.001) g 109.9 (0.1)ms 0.79 (0.01) g 17.9 (0.6) ms 1.00 -, 150 200 Time (ms) Figure 5.2 Acceleration vs. time graphs (top) for each sled acceleration (low La, standard Ma, and high Ha) and descriptive statistics for the average acceleration (a), pulse duration (At), peak acceleration (ap) and time of peak acceleration (tp). Superimposed velocity vs. time plots (bottom) of the three perturbation pulses. The dark line depicts the standard perturbation. 81 or three auditory tones (1000 Hz, 80 dB, 40 ms duration) to identify the low, standard or high acceleration perturbations respectively. Warning tones were presented about 5 seconds after the completion of the preceding trial. In the other block, subjects received no warning tones. Half the subject received the warned block first; the other half received the unwarned block first. The time between perturbations varied randomly (uniform distribution) between 20 and 30 seconds and the rest period between blocks was about 5 minutes. For all trials, subjects were instructed to sit normally, face forward, rest their forearms on their lap and to relax their face and neck muscles. To achieve a stabilized response prior to testing, each subject first underwent eleven standard perturbations. Prior to the above protocol, seated subjects performed sub-maximal isometric contractions in flexion and extension to generate normalizing data for the S C M and P A R A muscles respectively. A strap attached to the load cell was placed around a subject's head and its length adjusted to ensure the subject's head was neutrally positioned. The strap was located immediately above the glabella for flexion contractions and at the height of the external occipital protuberance for extension contractions. Subjects were instructed to generate a force of 50 N with visual feedback, first in flexion and then in extension. E M G and load cell data were acquired for 5 s during each contraction. 5.2.4 Data Reduction A subject's initial position was determined from the Optotrak data immediately preceding the perturbation. Initial head position was defined in the laboratory reference frame using the horizontal (X-axis; positive forward) and vertical (Z-axis; positive downward) positions of the mastoid process relative to the seat hinge (Figure 5.1). Initial head angle in the sagittal plane was determined from the forehead and vertex markers and reported relative to the positive X-axis (+0y rotation corresponded to extension). Initial torso position was defined using the horizontal and vertical positions of the midpoint between the manubrium and C7 spinous process markers relative to the seat hinge, and torso angle relative to the horizontal plane was determined using the same two markers. The RMS accuracy of the position measurements from the Optotrak system was less than 0.1 mm, and based on marker separation, the RMS accuracy of the calculated angles was less than 0.1 degrees. The onset of head movement, and the amplitude and time of peak head accelerations were determined directly from the accelerometer data. The algorithm used to determine onset is developed in Appendix A. Forehead acceleration data were not resolved into the lab reference frame. Peak retraction, defined as the maximum horizontal translation of the top of the cervical spine rearward relative to the bottom of the cervical spine, was estimated using the maximum relative horizontal displacement in the lab reference frame between the Optotrak markers on the mastoid and manubrium. Peak angular velocity of the head was determined from the angular rate sensor data after 82 it had been digitally compensated to reduce the sensor's high-pass frequency to 0.002 Hz (Laughlin, 1998). Angular acceleration was then computed by finite differences (5 ms window) from the compensated angular velocity data. Total head angular displacement was determined from the Optotrak markers located at the forehead and vertex. Horizontal and vertical accelerations at the mastoid process were computed by double differentiating the Optotrak data. This technique produced results within O.lg of the values computed using a rigid body transformation of the linear and angular accelerations measured at the forehead and was preferred because it relied on data from only one Optotrak marker rather than data from two accelerometers, an angular rate sensor and two Optotrak markers needed for the rigid body calculation. Mastoid accelerations were computed in the lab reference frame. Pre-stimulus noise in each channel of the E M G data was quantified using the root mean squared (RMS) amplitude of the E M G signal over the 100 ms preceding the perturbation. E M G onset was defined as the time at which the RMS amplitude, computed from the raw E M G data using a moving 20 ms window, reached 10 percent of it maximum value and was then confirmed visually. For each muscle, the RMS amplitude of the E M G signal was calculated for the interval between E M G onset and peak head extension angle. The corresponding pre-stimulus noise for each muscle was then subtracted from this quantity. The S C M and PARA muscle E M G amplitudes were normalized by the RMS amplitude obtained during the 5 s sub-maximal contraction for the corresponding muscle. 5.2.5 Statistical Analysis Data were parsed into sequences of five perturbations so that each sequence contained two standard perturbations before and two standard perturbations after a low or high acceleration perturbation. Within-subject means of each dependent variable were computed for each trial within these sequences separately for the alerted and unalerted blocks. These means were then normalized by the mean response for all 30 standard perturbations in the unalerted block. This normalization process reduced between-subject variance due to anthropometry and gender, but maintained within subject variance due to the different amplitude awareness levels and perturbation intensities. For each kinematic dependent variable, a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences related to level of awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation intensity (L a, M a , H a). After first confirming that there were no left/right side differences in the muscle response data, the mean responses of the left and right E M G variables were calculated and then assessed using the same two-way repeated-measures A N O V A . Post-hoc testing for differences between the three perturbations was performed using a Scheffe test. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica (v.5.1, Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) and a significance level of a=0.05. 83 5.3 Results The mean initial position and angle of the head and upper torso prior to each perturbation did not vary significantly with either warning level or perturbation intensity (Table 5.2). The perturbations themselves produced stereotypical responses in all subjects (Figure 5.3). The torso was accelerated forward first, followed by the head, which was accelerated linearly upward and forward, and angularly into extension. Most subjects responded to the perturbation by rapidly restoring their upright head position. Some subjects, however, altered their response strategy and restored their upright head position more slowly, particularly after the low intensity perturbations. In most of these trials, a clear peak was still visible in both the retraction (rx) and head angle (0) data (see left panel in Figure 5.3). In five subjects, peak head angle and peak retraction during the low perturbations did not occur within 500 ms of perturbation onset and therefore all data from these five subjects were removed from the statistical analysis. Clear S C M activity was present in all trials, however, P A R A activity was often difficult to discern from the background noise. As a result, within-subject means for PARA activity were occasionally calculated using data from fewer than three trials. Advance warning of perturbation intensity had no effect on the mean amplitudes or mean times of the E M G or kinematic variables (Figure 5.4). There were also no significant differences between the four standard perturbations considered in the analyses of variance. Significant differences, however, were observed in all dependent variables as a function of perturbation intensity. Descriptive statistics of the raw data and the results of inferential analyses on the normalized data are given in Tables 5.3 through 5.5. Post-hoc analyses of the perturbation intensity effect revealed that the amplitudes of the E M G and kinematic responses for all dependent variables were lower in the low intensity perturbation than in the standard perturbation (p<0.048). In addition, all peak kinematic responses occurred later in the low acceleration perturbations than in the standard perturbations (p<0.017). Differences in the onset latencies of the OO, M A S and PARA muscles were not significantly different between the low and standard pulses, however, S C M activation was delayed by 3 ms in the low perturbation compared to the standard perturbation (p<0.0027). Despite significant main effects for pulse intensity when the low, standard and high acceleration pulses were analyzed together, post-hoc testing revealed that the high acceleration perturbation did not always produce significantly larger peak kinematic responses than the standard perturbation. The mean amplitudes of both peak retraction (rx) and peak head angle (0) were not significantly larger during the high acceleration trials than during the standard acceleration trials (p>0.44) (Figure 5.4). Similarly, some of the peak kinematic responses did not occur earlier in the high acceleration perturbation than in the standard perturbation. The mean time of the peak upward forehead acceleration (zi) and peak downward mastoid acceleration (z4) during high acceleration 84 Table 5.2 Mean (S.D.) of the initial position and angle of the head and torso. Upper portion of table summarizes data as a function of awareness (alerted, unalerted) and perturbation intensity (low, standard, high). Positions are relative to an origin at the seat hinge; angles are relative to the horizontal. There were no significant differences with either warning level or perturbation intensity. X , horizontal position, +ve forward; Z, vertical position, +ve downward; N, number of subjects in analysis. Mastoid process Head Manubrium-C7 midpoint Torso Awareness Perturbation X Z angle X Z angle Intensity (mm) (mm) (deg) (mm) (mm) (deg) Alerted Low 12(19) -648 (36) 9.3 (6.3) 26 (16) -565 (29) -16.5 (4.8) Standard 12(19) -648 (36) 9.5 (6.3) 25 (16) -565 (29) -16.4 (4.8) High 11 (20) -648 (36) 9.5 (6.6) 25 (17) -565 (29) -16.3 (4.9) Unalerted Low 9(17) -648 (36) 10.1 (6.6) 23 (14) -565 (29) -16.0 (4.6) Standard 9(17) -648 (36) 9.7 (6.4) 23 (14) -565 (29) -16.0 (4.6) High 9(17) -648 (36) 9.7 (6.6) 23 (14) -565 (29) -16.0 (4.6) N 30 30 31 25 25 25 85 Figure 5.3 Sample data from a low acceleration (La), standard acceleration (Ma) and high acceleration (Ha) perturbation for a single subject. Labeled hollow circles in the left panel represent kinematic peaks used for subsequent analyses. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and are equal to lg, 50 mm, 200 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 20 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; MAS, masseter; S C M , sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; cx, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 0, head angle. 86 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 SCM amplitude Head acceleration (x,) 5\u00C2\u00A7 ,. S* \u00C2\u00A7 S 15 m \u00E2\u0080\u00A2& \u00C2\u00A73 S Mastoid acceleration (x2) 5 Retraction (rj S \u00C2\u00A7 i 5 g \u00C2\u00AB 5 * 5 g 3 8 3 jjjS IQ Head angular velocity (co) S *5 \u00C2\u00A7 IS ^ IB \u00C2\u00A3 PARA amplitude Head acceleration (z,) Mastoid acceleration (z4) Head angular acceleration (a,) 55 *5 S S Head angle (0) g g TI g s e g s *a -2 -1 La +1 +2 -2 -1 H A +1 +2 -2 -1 U +1 +2 -2 -1 H A +1 +2 Figure 5.4 Mean and standard deviation of selected normalized electromyographic and kinematic amplitude data for two standard perturbations (Ma) either side the two test stimuli - a low acceleration (L a) shown on the left half of each graph (\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 alerted, O unalerted), and a high acceleration (Ha) shown on the right half of each graph (\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 alerted, \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 unalerted). -2 and -1 are the penultimate and ultimate trials preceding the test stimulus, and +1 and +2 are the first and second trials immediately following the test stimulus. L and H values which are significantly different from the standard perturbation are indicated by asterisks: **** p<0.0001. \u00C2\u00A7 > \u00C2\u00AB 9 cS < 3 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00C2\u00AB-> .\"1=1 M-i 3 . \u00C2\u00AB\u00C2\u00AB <\"*\"} s CO 1) <-\u00C2\u00BB \" co \u00E2\u0080\u00A23 '\"* O \u00C2\u00B0 -3 c <3 O PU C \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094' =s i-1 Ctf fL) \u00E2\u0080\u00A23 ~ to to tu 8 . H \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 l\u00E2\u0080\u0094 - ! 03 03 C to to - \u00C2\u00A3 tu o \u00C2\u00A7 \"5 c o . -3 eS T3 N Ji -3 jO CS 23 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00C2\u00A7 03 3 O o CM 3 O ' t t o CM 1-tu CM O P HJ CS _c \u00C2\u00AB W) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2O -3 cj \u00E2\u0080\u00A2a -p cS 3 s -\u00C2\u00A7 U 3 S cS \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^ \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^ to tj -2 to .3 O CJ 3 C3 CU CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00C2\u00A3 CS P & \u00C2\u00A7 cS cU 3 3 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2a cs -a - 3 3 .22 tu 1 / 5 CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094I 3 =S O - 3 CM 3 CO cj CU *M u. tU 3 S3 .3 tu Cu tu -3 O tu T3 3 ID -3 H-I T3 o O * ^ -3 3 CJ CO 03 CU CJ *~ C -3 O \u00E2\u0080\u00A23 >> T3 .3 3 co o3 \u00C2\u00A7 3 .S 13 1111 \u00C2\u00ABs y X) 03 3 ^ tt tU c & I 3 CS CL> Q \u00C2\u00A7 3 U ID /-> Os Os OO tf to Os o Os d d d i d d i d Os CO CN CN 00 'So d d d d d d >T Os so so oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f Os SO tf oo 00 oo d d d d d d is o -a u tt < -a JS \u00E2\u0080\u00A23 W C * do is o 03 T3 c do oo -a \"oi C D PU < > O * * i n i n SO CO CN * * * Os CN CO oo OS SO * i n i n i n i n tf \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f o * CO oq OS i n \u00E2\u0080\u0094i SO CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f tf i n i n tf SO SO CN CN i CN \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CN CN CN i CN tu 03 =S < * * so i n * * * oo O0 * * i n O CN * SO CO o m CM X CJ c u 03 < O o o d V a. * * * * 88 CL) - in \"2 3 O ns .to <<- \"'SJ O 2 C ? .2 ^ \" w / U \u00C2\u00AB> 3 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a 3 3 S to CO w CU CJ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 cu CJ .a 5 3 co o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 fc. O CU -= -2 S3 O N g cd 5 C CO \u00C2\u00A7 D CU CJ X ) tfc. S o o o 2 o ti & 0 I H ft s >- s cu O S H \u00E2\u0080\u00A2+-\u00C2\u00BB f\u00E2\u0080\u0094 5 | 1 * 3 S \u00E2\u0080\u00A28^ 1 3 cu T3 v. cu ca N CO Ut 2 cu g DH O 3 CU c '3, T3 O cu r\u00E2\u0080\u0094, 4-* CU 4-* 7J 'co C O C fc. 3 CH o CN Os CO so SO uo CN o oo o o CO so o O o o fcj -T3 3 u IT) T t WO SO i n oo 00 T t in CO CN oo T t T t CO in CN CO f~ in f-^ in I LL CN SO CO o o < Ha a = 0.851 (0.005) g At = 33.4 (0.2) ms a p = 1.50 (0.02) g tp = 16.5 (0.8) ms a = 0.451 (0.003) g At = 59.9 (0.3) ms a p = 0.79 (0.01) g tp = 18.0(0.6) ms a = 1.263 (0.005) g At = 43.2 (0.1) ms a p = 2.21 (0.01) g a = 0.899 (0.002) g At = 59.9(0.1) ms a p = 1.50 (0.02) g tp = 16.6(0.7) ms a = 0.477 (0.001) g At = 109.9 (0.1) ms a p = 0.79 (0.01) g tp = 17.9(0.6) ms a = 1.354 (0.005) g At = 60.1 (0.2) ms a p = 2.21 (0.01) g 17.6(0.7) ms a = 0.934 (0.003) g At = 85.0 (0.3) ms a p = 1.50(0.02) g t\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16.6 (0.8) ms Av = 0.25 m/s Av = 0.50 m/s Av = 0.75 m/s Velocity Figure 6.2 Matrix of sled pulses and descriptive statistics. Acceleration vs. time graphs (top) for each combination of sled velocity (low Lv, medium Mv, and high Hv) and acceleration (low |_a, medium M a, and high Ha). Descriptive statistics (bottom) for the velocity change (Av), average acceleration (a), pulse duration (At), peak acceleration (ap) and time of peak (tp) corresponding to each of the seven pulses. The standard pulse (Mv, Ma), in the dashed box, was used for the initial eleven practice trials. 101 1.00 -, 0 50 100 150 200 Time (ms) Figure 6.3 Superimposed velocity v. time plots for each of the seven perturbation pulses. The dark line depicts the standard perturbation (MaMv). 0.00 -I , , , , 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Velocity change (m/s) Figure 6.4 The relationship between average acceleration and velocity change for an idealized square wave perturbation pulse. The dashed lines radiating from the origin depict lines of constant pulse duration and the solid hyperbolic curves depict lines along which the product of acceleration and velocity is constant. The dark markers represent the seven pulses used in this experiment. Because actual pulses were not square waves, the peak velocity (plotted here) was larger than the actual velocity change. Units of time are milliseconds and units of the acceleration and velocity are m V 3 . 102 to relax their face and neck muscles. To achieve a stabilized response prior to testing, each subject first underwent eleven standard perturbations. Prior to the above protocol, seated subjects performed sub-maximal isometric contractions in flexion and extension to generate normalizing data for the S C M and PARA muscles respectively. A strap attached to the load cell was placed around a subject's head and its length adjusted to ensure the subject's head was neutrally positioned. The strap was located immediately above the glabella for flexion contractions and at the height of the external occipital protuberance for extension contractions. Subjects were instructed to generate a force of 50 N with visual feedback, first in flexion and then in extension. E M G and load cell data were acquired for 5 s during each contraction. 6.2.5 Data Reduction A subject's initial position was determined from the Optotrak data immediately preceding the perturbation. Initial head position was defined in the laboratory reference frame using the horizontal (X-axis; positive forward) and vertical (Z-axis; positive downward) positions of the mastoid process relative to the seat hinge (Figure 6.1). Initial head angle in the sagittal plane was determined from the forehead and vertex markers and reported relative to the positive X-axis (+6y rotation corresponded to extension). Initial torso position was defined using the horizontal and vertical positions of the midpoint between the manubrium and C7 spinous process markers relative to the seat hinge, and torso angle relative to the horizontal plane was determined using the same two markers. The RMS accuracy of the position measurements from the Optotrak system was less than 0.1 mm, and based on marker separation, the RMS accuracy of the calculated angles was less than 0.1 degrees. The onset of head and torso movement, amplitude of peak head and torso acceleration and the time of the peak head and torso accelerations were determined directly from the accelerometer data. The algorithm used to determine onset is developed in Appendix A. Forehead acceleration data were not resolved into the lab reference frame. Peak retraction, defined as the maximum horizontal translation of the top of the cervical spine rearward relative to the bottom of the cervical spine, was estimated using the maximum relative horizontal displacement in the lab reference frame between the Optotrak markers on the mastoid and manubrium. Peak angular velocity of the head was determined from the angular rate sensor data after it had been digitally compensated to reduce the sensor's high-pass frequency to 0.002 Hz (Laughlin, 1998). Angular acceleration was then computed by finite differences (5 ms window) from the compensated angular velocity data. Total head angular displacement was determined from the Optotrak markers located at the forehead and vertex. Horizontal and vertical accelerations at the mastoid process were computed by double differentiating the Optotrak data. This technique produced results within O.lg of the values computed using a rigid 103 body transformation of the linear and angular accelerations measured at the forehead and was preferred because it relied on data from only one Optotrak marker rather than data from two accelerometers, an angular rate sensor and two Optotrak markers needed for the rigid body calculation. Mastoid accelerations were computed in the lab reference frame. Pre-stimulus noise in each channel of the E M G data was quantified using the root mean squared (RMS) amplitude of the E M G signal over the 100 ms preceding the perturbation. E M G onset was defined as the time at which the RMS amplitude, computed from the raw E M G data using a moving 20 ms window, reached 10 percent of it maximum value and was then confirmed visually. For each muscle, the RMS amplitude of the E M G signal was calculated for the interval between E M G onset and peak head extension angle. The corresponding pre-stimulus noise for each muscle was then subtracted from this quantity. The S C M and PARA muscle E M G amplitudes were normalized by the RMS amplitude obtained during the 5 s sub-maximal contraction for the corresponding muscle. 6.2.6 Statistical Analysis Within-subject means of each dependent variable were calculated for each of the seven perturbations and then normalized by the within-subject mean of the twelve standard perturbations. A one-way repeated-measures A N O V A was then used to assess differences between the seven perturbations. Post-hoc testing for differences between individual pulses was performed using a Scheffe test. To examine the relationship between the dependent variables and the four different measures of the pulse (acceleration, velocity, duration and the aAv product), separate linear regression analyses were performed for every combination of dependent variable and measure of perturbation intensity. The coefficients of determination were then examined to evaluate which measure of perturbation intensity correlated best with the dependent variables. A multiple regression analysis was not conducted because the four measures of perturbation intensity were not independent of each another. All ANOVAs were performed using Statistica (v.5.1, Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK) and a significance level of a=0.05. Linear regression analyses were conducted using Excel (v.7.0, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). 6.3 Results The initial position and angle of the head and upper torso prior to each perturbation did not vary between the different pulses. During each perturbation, a stereotypical response was observed in all subjects (Figure 6.5). The torso was accelerated forward first, followed by the head, which was accelerated linearly upward and forward, and angularly into extension. Most subjects responded to the perturbation by rapidly restoring their upright head position, although some subjects periodically 104 M a Mv H a H v Retraction 500 Time (ms) Figure 6.5 Sample data from a low velocity, low acceleration (LvLa), medium velocity, medium acceleration (MvMa), and high velocity, high acceleration (HvHa) perturbation for a single subject. Labeled hollow circles in the left panel represent kinematic peaks were used for subsequent analyses. The vertical scale bars are aligned with perturbation onset and equal to lg, 50 mm, 200 rad/s2, 5 rad/s and 20 deg. OO, orbicularis oculi; M A S , masseter; SCM, sternocleidomastoid; PARA, cervical paraspinal, 1, left; r, right; a, linear acceleration, subscript x and z refers to the x- and z-directions; m, torso acceleration; r x, retraction; cc, head angular acceleration; co, head angular velocity; 9, head angle. 105 altered their response and did not attempt to restore their upright head position until later. In most trials in which subjects responded in this manner, a clear peak was still visible in both the retraction and head angle data. The amplitude of all E M G and kinematic parameters (identified by the labeled hollow circles in Figure 6.5) varied significantly between the perturbations (p<0.0001 for all variables; see Appendix C for a complete tabulation of all un-normalized data). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the high acceleration, high velocity (H a,H v) perturbation consistently produced the largest amplitude response (Figure 6.6). In keeping with this finding, the lowest amplitude responses occurred in the low acceleration, low velocity (L a ,L v ) perturbation, though these responses were often not significantly different from those that occurred in perturbations from adjacent cells in the test matrix (e.g., L a , M v and M a , L v ) . Homogenous groups, determined via post-hoc testing, are shown in Figure 6.6 using outlines of increasing weight to represent increasing amplitude. Overall, the pattern visible in the weighted outlines in Figure 6.6 indicated that amplitude of both the E M G and kinematic responses increased with both acceleration and velocity change. To explore this pattern further, the amplitude of each of the E M G and kinematic variables was linearly regressed against each of the four descriptors of the perturbing pulse (a, Av, At and aAv). Aside from the regression analyses against pulse duration, all of the regression analyses yielded coefficients of determination that were statistically significant (Table 6.2). A comparison between the time at which each kinematic peak occurred in the standard pulse and its corresponding coefficient of determination showed that the amplitude of the early kinematic peaks correlated strongly with pulse acceleration, but that the strength of these correlations declined for later kinematic peaks (Figure 6.7). In contrast to average acceleration, the correlations with velocity change were weaker for the amplitude of the early kinematic peaks and stronger for the amplitude of the later kinematic peaks. Unlike either average acceleration or velocity change, the correlations between the aAv product and the dependent variables remained uniformly high (r2>0.75) across the whole time interval spanned by the kinematic response peaks considered here. The coefficient of determination observed for the aAv product was only exceeded by the other pulse descriptors in four of the 12 response peaks: once by the regression against acceleration for the first kinematic peak (z3) and three times by the regressions against velocity change for the last three kinematics peaks (xi ,r x, and 0) (Table 6.2). The timing of all E M G and kinematic parameters also varied significantly between the perturbations (p<0.0001 for all variables). Post-hoc comparisons for the neck muscle latencies and some early kinematic parameters revealed two patterns, both of which were different from the pattern observed for response amplitudes. In Figure 6.8, homogeneous groups were again outlined, however in this figure, increasing outline weight represented increasingly short latencies relative to 106 SCM amplitude o to CD o o c H a o 03 ler M a CD O < La H a f \ .03 (0.19)1 J .40 (0.46)) H a M a r ^ 0.54 (0.23) 1 1.13(0.34)^ M a La ^0.48 (0.20) 0.57 (0.22)1 La U M v H v Head acceleration (x,) PARA amplitude ^ 58 (0.06) 1.00 (0.05) M .40 (0.18)1 1 [1.25 (0.16)) ^0.57 (0.07)^ 0.82 (0.11); L\u00E2\u0080\u009E M v H a M a ^0.97 (0.24)1 J.32 (0.41)) C ^ 0.57 (0.23) 1 1.06 (0.35)1 ^0.58 (0.21) 0.66 (0.24)1 L v M v H v Head acceleration (z,) f \ . 15 (0.14)1 J.53 (0.28)) J).64 (0.10)1 ( < ) J .26 (0.16)) L a ^0.56 (0.06)j 0.71 (0.09)} L v Mv Hv Mastoid acceleration (x2) aj M a ' 0.51 (0.07) M a CD O * u Retraction (rj f 4-' 0.55 (0.06) 1.03 (0.03) 1 1.44(0.08) 1.42(0.08) ^0.52 (0.06)j 0.95 (0.10) j U M v Head angular acceleration ( a , ) H a M a L a 0.57 (0.07) 1.14(0.09) 1.80(0.20)1 1 11.37(0.16)) [0.50(0.06) 0.60(0.07)) S H a Head angular velocity (to) 1.12(0.06)1 1.70 (0.17)1 K \u00C2\u00BB M a ' 0.54 (0.06) I CJ 1 1.46 (0.16)1 * L a ^0.49 (0.05Kjf 0.71 (0.10); M v Velocity Head angle (9) M a ' 0.54 (0.07) 1.08(0.07) 1 1.64(0.14) 1.60 (0.16) 0.51 (0.07)j L v 0.96 (0.15)| M v Velocity Figure 6.6 Mean and standard deviation of normalized electromyographic amplitude and peak kinematics as a function of perturbation pulse parameters. The borders encircle amplitudes which are not significantly different from each other according to a post-hoc Scheffe test on the normalized data. Increasing line weight corresponds to increasing amplitude. Note that larger amplitudes are consistently in the top right and lower amplitudes are consistently in the bottom left of each table. 107 Table 6.2 Coefficients of determination (r2) for every combination of normalized dependent variable and perturbation pulse parameters. Kinematic amplitudes sorted temporally based on the average time observed in the standard perturbation. The largest r 2 for each variable in bold text. An r2=0.02 was significant at the p=0.05 level. Av, velocity change; a, average acceleration; At, pulse duration; aAv, product of average acceleration and velocity change. Dependent variable Time Coefficients of determination (r2) (ms) Av a At aAv o SCM amplitude - . 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.58 0.75) with the amplitude of all kinematic peaks over the whole time span of the responses considered here and may therefore be a more robust measure with which to predict the peak amplitude of the occupant kinematics from a collision pulse. The inclusion of both acceleration and velocity change into a measure of collision severity would help to explain recent evidence of large variations in peak kinematics when different accelerations were used to generate a series of simulated collisions with the same velocity change (Siegmund and Heinrichs, 2001). It would also help to explain the increased incidence of long-term whiplash injuries observed in individuals whose vehicles were equipped with trailer hitches (Krafft et al., 2000). Impacts to the stiff hitch components produced collision pulses that had a higher acceleration and shorter duration than collisions of a similar velocity change for vehicles not equipped with a trailer hitch (Krafft et al., 2000). The aAv product might therefore be a better measure than velocity change for predicting the magnitude of occupant kinematics in the kinds of collisions that produce whiplash injury. Due to habituation, the absolute magnitude of the muscle and kinematic responses observed in the current study did not accurately reflect the response that would have been evoked in unprepared subjects exposed to only one perturbation. The onset latencies observed in the current study, however, were similar to those observed in subjects exposed to only one perturbation using the same experimental setup (Experiment 2A, Chapter 3), and suggested that the same reflex pathway was 117 mediating the S C M response despite habituation of the response magnitude. Therefore, the relative magnitude of the muscle and kinematic responses observed between the different perturbations used in the current experiment likely reflects the gradation in muscle and kinematics responses that would occur in unprepared subjects. In summary, the results of the current experiment showed that no single descriptor of perturbation intensity predicted the gradation in amplitude and timing of the neck muscle response and the head and neck kinematics evoked in seated subjects exposed to horizontal forward perturbations. Overall, the product of the average acceleration and velocity change of the perturbation was the best perturbation-based predictor of the amplitude of the muscle and kinematic responses. The time of both activation and peak amplitude in the S C M muscles and the timing of all kinematic peaks correlated best with perturbation duration. A comparison of the temporal pattern of S C M activation and the onset of both torso and head acceleration over the seven perturbations used in this study suggested that neither the vestibulocollic reflex nor the cervicocollic reflex played a major role in activation of the S C M muscles during these perturbations. Other somatosensory information, such as a large cutaneous stimulus due to interaction with the seat, or muscle or joints receptors in the pelvis or trunk, was therefore a more likely source of the afferent signal triggering the S C M muscle response in these perturbations. 118 C H A P T E R 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The overall goal of this thesis was to assess two questions related to the testing of human subjects for whiplash injury research. The first question was whether, and to what degree, subject awareness regarding the presence, timing and amplitude of a whiplash-like perturbation affected the muscle and kinematic responses to that perturbation. The second question was whether, and to what degree, habituation over multiple perturbations affected the neck muscle response and the resulting head and neck kinematics. Both questions addressed the external validity of laboratory tests that have exposed human subjects to whiplash-like perturbations in order to study the biomechanics of whiplash injury. Real whiplash-producing collisions are typically one-time events that occur without warning. Laboratory tests, on the other hand, have often used multiple exposures or practice trials, and subjects participating in these tests have always known, to some degree, that a perturbation was imminent. These differences between the actual exposures that cause most whiplash injuries and the laboratory exposures used to study whiplash injuries may reduce the external validity of these human subject experiments. Before exposing subjects to whiplash-like perturbations, the ability of subjects to alter a reflex neck muscle response was first studied using the acoustic startle reflex. In Experiment 1 (Chapter 2), readiness to perform a ballistic head movement in a simple reaction time protocol was shown to have a large effect on the reflex neck muscle response evoked by an acoustically startling stimulus. If subjects were prepared to execute a head flexion movement, then the startle-evoked response was a head flexion. Alternatively, if subjects were prepared to execute a head rotation movement, then the same startling stimulus evoked a head rotation. While it may be debated whether the prepared movement sculpted the startle response (Siegmund et al., 2001b) or whether the startle response released a prepared motor programme (Valls-Sole et al., 1999), the net effect was that the reflex response of the neck muscles had been altered by readiness to execute a specific movement. Although readiness to perform a ballistic movement in a simple reaction time protocol was likely an optimal setting in which to detect the alteration of a reflex response, the results of Experiment 1 nonetheless showed that the reflex response of the neck muscles was malleable. Experiment 1 also showed that readiness-induced alterations of the neck muscle reflex could occur without the movement being practiced. Together, these two findings suggested that conscious preparation of a response to a whiplash-like perturbation could potentially contaminate the muscle response during a subject's first exposure to a perturbation. The ability to willfully alter a reflex response of the neck muscle, however, was not evidence 119 that subjects actually did so when exposed to whiplash-like perturbations. In Experiment 2A (Chapter 3), three groups of subjects were given different levels of information regarding the presence or timing of a single whiplash-like perturbation to examine whether they made pre-stimulus preparations that altered the reflex response of their neck muscles. Overall, the muscle and kinematic responses of subjects given precise information regarding the timing of their first perturbation (alerted subjects) responded in a similar manner to subjects given only imprecise information of when the perturbation would occur (unalerted subjects). In contrast, the response of a third group of subjects, who were deceived and perturbed unexpectedly (surprised subjects), was different from both the alerted and unalerted groups of subjects. The response differences consisted of a delayed neck muscle activation in all surprised subjects, a larger muscle contraction in surprised male subjects, and changes in the peak amplitude of some kinematic variables in female subjects. These results suggested that warning of the presence of a perturbation created anticipation, and that this event-related anticipation then facilitated the sensorimotor system and resulted in the earlier muscle activation observed in alerted and unalerted subjects than in surprised subjects. A similar sensorimotor facilitation may also have been responsible for the absence of habituation observed in Experiment 1. Precise or imprecise information of perturbation timing did not further alter the reflex muscle response - a finding that indicated that awareness of the perturbation (event awareness) had a larger effect on the response than did awareness of the timing of the perturbation (temporal awareness). Experiment 2B (Chapter 4) showed that multiple sequential exposures produced a rapid attenuation of the neck muscle response consistent with habituation. The muscle response attenuated to about 35 to 60 percent of its original value and resulted in changes in the amplitude of peak kinematic parameters that varied between a 21 percent increase and a 29 percent decrease. This experiment showed that habituation of the neck muscle response to a whiplash-like perturbation resulted in kinematics that were significantly different from those observed during the first exposure and suggested that data from human subjects who had habituated to a perturbation might be of limited use in the study of whiplash injury mechanisms. Experiment 2C (Chapter 5) showed that pre-stimulus awareness of perturbation magnitude had no affect on the muscle or kinematic response, however the applicability of this conclusion was limited to the range of perturbation intensities used in this study. With more noxious perturbations, it was possible that different results may have been observed. Experiment 2C also showed that the neck muscle and kinematic responses were graded with the acceleration of the perturbation. This finding led to a systematic exploration in Experiment 2D (Chapter 6) of how the neck muscle response and kinematics of the head and neck were graded to different properties of the perturbation. This 120 experiment showed that the amplitude of the muscle and kinematic responses were graded to both the acceleration and velocity change of the perturbation. In addition, an analysis of neck muscle activation times in relation to the onset of torso and head acceleration suggested that neither the cervicocollic reflex nor the vestibulocollic reflex played a large role in triggering the neck muscle response to a whiplash-like perturbation. 7.1 Methodology - Advantages and Limitations All of the experiments conducted here focused on the reflex response of the neck muscles. Two methods of generating a reflex response were used: a loud noise capable of evoking the startle reflex and a rapid horizontal translation that evoked a postural response. In Experiment 1, a stimulus was required that did not directly contact the subjects. This allowed the effect of motor readiness on the reflex response of the neck muscles to be studied in a setting where all of the resulting kinematics were generated by the evoked muscle response. Both the muscle and kinematic responses could then be examined for changes related to motor readiness. The acoustic startle reflex produced a neck muscle contraction without direct contact to the subject and was therefore well suited to this experiment. Whereas the requirements for the stimulus needed in Experiment 1 were quite simple, the requirements of the rapid horizontal translation used for the remaining perturbation experiments were more complicated. If an overarching goal of these experiments was to assess the external validity of human subject studies into whiplash injury, then it was important that the perturbation experiments adequately represented both a real whiplash exposure and the conditions used in many human subject experiments. Given the wide variety of vehicles and seats available on the market, it was not possible to examine issues of external validity related to these factors. Instead, a single seat, taken from the passenger location of a 1991 Honda Accord, was used for these experiments. This seat was chosen because it had been used in previous human subjects experiments in which issues of habituation and subject awareness factored into the protocol (Siegmund et al., 1997; Brault et al., 2000). Although using only a single automobile seat reduced the external validity of the current study, there was nothing readily identifiable regarding the current experimental arrangement that would render the results observed in these experiments invalid had another seat been used. The question of what type of perturbation pulse to use was more difficult to answer. An incomplete list of collision pulse descriptors includes the following: pulse shape, average acceleration, peak acceleration, duration, speed change, displacement, jerk and time to peak acceleration. As shown by the results of Experiments 2C and 2D (Chapters 5 and 6), at least some of these pulse descriptors affect the muscle and kinematic responses. The overriding criterion applied in 121 selecting the perturbations to be used in these experiments was subject safety. This was particularly important for the deceived subjects, since being unprepared for a collision has been identified as a risk factor for whiplash injury (Sturzenegger et al., 1994, 1995) and this level of subject awareness had not previously been studied. A second requirement of the perturbation was that it evoke a consistent neck muscle response in all subjects even after multiple sequential exposures. Based on pilot testing, a pulse with an average acceleration (a) of 0.90 g, a velocity change (Av) of 0.5 m/s, and a duration (At) of 60 ms was selected. This pulse intensity was below the lowest intensity pulse reported to have generated transient symptoms (a=0.84 g, Av=l.l m/s, At=135 ms; Brault et al., 1998) and slightly larger than that used in previous seated perturbation studies (fixed displacement of 80 mm, v=0.36 m/s, At=240 ms; Forssberg and Hirschfeld, 1994). The results of the four perturbation experiments contained in this thesis clearly showed that a reflex response of the S C M muscle was consistently evoked in all subjects over as many as 84 sequential perturbations. PARA muscle activation also occurred consistently, although after habituation the amplitude of the response in these muscles was small. The onset latencies of both the S C M and PARA muscles were similar to those observed in previous whiplash experiments (Table 1.1), and suggested that a similar reflex activation of the neck muscles was being evoked in the current experiments. Moreover, Experiment 2B (Chapter 3) showed that overall the reflex muscle response in surprised subjects, who represented unprepared occupants in real collisions, was similar, though delayed, to the reflex muscle response in alerted and unalerted subjects, who represented the two extreme awareness conditions used in previous whiplash experiments. The overall similarity of these muscle responses suggested that the reflex response observed in the current experiments were similar to those observed both in real whiplash collisions and in laboratory experiments using human subjects to study whiplash injury. The overall kinematics produced by the current perturbations were also similar in pattern, but different in magnitude, to those observed in previous whiplash experiments (Severy et al., 1955; Mertz and Patrick, 1967; Gutierrez, 1978; McConnell et al., 1993; Geigl et al., 1994; Matsushita et al., 1994; Szabo et al., 1994; McConnell et al., 1995; Ono and Kanno, 1996; Szabo and Welcher, 1996; Castro et al., 1997; Ono et al., 1997; Siegmund et al., 1997; Davidsson et al., 1998; Pope et al., 1998; van den Kroonenberg et al., 1998). Moreover, the kinematic responses observed between the surprised and aware (alerted and unalerted) subjects in Experiment 2A (Chapter 3) were similar in overall pattern, though different in their relative amplitudes. As with the muscle response, the pattern of movement generated by the current perturbations was likely similar to that present in both real whiplash collisions and in laboratory experiments using human subjects to study whiplash injury. Therefore, from the perspective of both the reflex muscle response and the pattern of the induced 122 kinematic response, the rapid horizontal translation used to perturb subjects in these experiment appeared to be externally valid. The external validity of these experiments therefore boiled down to a question of perturbation magnitude: were the differences observed at the perturbation intensities used in the current study applicable to the larger perturbations used in many whiplash experiments? Experiments 2C and 2D (Chapters 5 and 6) showed a similar gradation in both the amplitude of the muscle response and the amplitude of the kinematic response with perturbation intensity. Although it cannot be inferred from the current data that this simultaneous gradation of muscle and kinematics will remain intact at higher collision severities, a similar gradation between muscle and kinematic responses has also been observed in collisions conducted at velocity changes of 1.1 and 2.2 m/s (Siegmund et al., 1997; Brault et al., 2000). This evidence of a similar muscle and kinematic gradation at higher perturbation intensities than used in the current experiments suggested that the awareness-related, habituation-related, and stimulus-intensity-related phenomena observed in the current study were applicable up to a velocity change of 2.2 m/s. Two factors ultimately limit the applicability of the current findings. First, as noted in Experiment 2C, at some increased intensity, the perturbation will be perceived as noxious and sensitization, rather than habituation, may develop. There are currently no data from which to predict at what perturbation intensity this transition might occur. Second, the force that can be produced by a muscle has an upper limit. Data from collisions at a velocity change of 2.2 m/s produced an integrated E M G amplitude in the S C M muscle that was about 50 percent of the amplitude produced during a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) (Brault et al., 2000). These data suggested that gradation of the muscle response extended to collision severities greater than Av=2.2 m/s, however, the perturbation intensity at which the reflex muscle contraction saturates has not been determined. Based on the above discussion, there appeared to be no reason to conclude that the results observed in the experiments contained in this thesis would not be applicable to both real whiplash collisions and laboratory experiments using human subjects to study whiplash injury. 7.2 Comparison of Awareness and Stimulus Intensity Effects Differences in the amplitude of some peak kinematic responses between surprised and aware subjects in Experiment 2A (Chapter 3) were similar or smaller than differences in the amplitude of peak kinematic responses observed between the different perturbation intensities used in Experiment 2D (Chapter 6). This raised the question of whether the different kinematics observed in surprised individuals could be addressed by scaling perturbation intensity. In Experiment 2A, the peak retraction (rx) observed in surprised female subjects was 123 25 percent larger than the peak retraction observed in both groups of aware female subjects. Data from Experiment 2D showed that this increase in retraction could be produced by increasing the intensity of the perturbation. Experiment 2A also showed that a corresponding 30 percent reduction in horizontal mastoid acceleration accompanied the increased retraction in surprised female subjects. Data from Experiment 2D showed that this decrease in mastoid acceleration could be produced by decreasing the intensity of the perturbation. Both kinematic changes observed in surprised female subjects could not be simultaneously produced by a single change in perturbation intensity. This comparison showed that the kinematic differences between surprised and aware subjects could not be accommodated by varying perturbation intensity and highlighted the complex interplay of different kinematic variables that differentiated the responses of surprised and aware subjects. The multiple perturbations used in Experiment 2B (Chapter 4) produced an attenuation of the reflex muscle response. This attenuation was the result of a neural phenomenon known as habituation (Harris, 1943; Kandel, 1991), and did not produce an associated attenuation in all kinematic response variables. During habituation of the muscle response, the peak amplitude of some kinematic variables increased by up to 21 percent, whereas the peak amplitude of other kinematic variables decreased by up to 29 percent. When stimulus intensity was varied in Experiment 2D (Chapter 6), the amplitude of all kinematic peaks increased or decreased together. As a result, the kinematic changes that developed during habituation of the muscle response could also not be accommodated by varying perturbation intensity. 7.3 Neurophysiological Aspects of the Neck Muscle Reflex As described above, the attenuation of the neck muscle response that occurred with habituation resulted in a non-uniform pattern of changes in the peak amplitude of various kinematic variables. Some variables decreased in magnitude, whereas others either increased or remained the same. The divergent effects of habituation on the amplitude of the peak kinematic responses underscored the complexity of the head and neck musculoskeletal system and indicated that habituation in complex musculoskeletal systems may not be reliably determined by examining only the response of isolated kinematic variables. The rapid habituation of reflex muscle responses to sequentially-presented postural perturbations has led some researchers to equate the large initial response to a startle reflex (Hansen et al., 1988; Allum et al., 1992; Timmann and Horak, 1997). The startle reflex is a whole-body response that produces simultaneous activation of antagonist muscles, presumably to momentarily stiffen the body for protection or to better manage a blow (Yeomans and Frankland, 1996; Koch, 1999). It can be triggered with either acoustic, tactile or visual stimuli (Landis and Hunt, 1939) and 124 habituates rapidly to repeated exposures (Davis, 1984). In the current studies, both rapid habituation and co-activation of antagonist neck muscles were observed during a subject's first few perturbations. These similarities warranted a closer comparison of the startle-induced and perturbation-induced responses in order to determine whether they were indeed the same response. The mean onset latencies of the neck muscles to the acoustically startling stimulus used in Experiment 1 (Chapter 2) were 52 ms for the S C M muscles and 60 ms for the PARA muscles. In Experiment 2A (Chapter 3), the mean onset latencies observed in all aware subjects were 72 ms for the S C M muscles and 78 ms for the PARA muscles. The delay in onset latencies between the acoustic and perturbation stimuli was about 18 to 20 ms for both muscles, and within each stimulus, the delay between S C M and PARA activation was about 8 ms. The delay between the acoustic and perturbation stimuli was remarkably similar to the 12 to 20 ms (calculated in Chapter 6) required for afferent information to ascend the spinal cord from the pelvis to the brainstem. Overall, the similar patterns of cocontraction, habituation, activation sequence, and overall activation times (if adjusted for a difference in mechanoreceptor location) between the acoustically-evoked startle reflex and the perturbation-evoked postural reflex suggested that the latter was either a startle response or some response indistinguishable from a startle response. Unlike the neck muscles, the onset latencies of the orbicularis oculi (OO) muscles were delayed by 30 to 35 ms in response to the perturbation stimulus compared to the acoustic stimulus. This longer delay suggested that a different reflex pathway might be responsible for triggering the eye blink in response to the two stimuli. Brown et al. (1991b) observed that the onset latency of the OO muscles was the same whether evoked as part of a generalized startle reflex or evoked in isolation after the startle reflex had habituated. Based on this observation, these authors proposed a distinction between the auditory blink reflex, which did not readily habituate, and the startle response, which habituated rapidly. They proposed that the early OO activity observed in the acoustic startle reflex was actually the auditory blink reflex and that only later OO activity was related to the startle response. The perturbations used in the current study did not have a substantial acoustic component and were therefore unlikely to trigger the auditory blink reflex. As a result, the OO activity observed in the current data may be related entirely to the startle reflex independent of the auditory blink reflex. This interpretation of the data both explained the longer delay in activation of the OO muscles in the current experiments and provided support for the proposal advanced by Brown et al. (1991b). 7.4 Implications for Whiplash Injury Research The experiments reported here provided new information regarding two aspects of whiplash injury: the external validity of human subject experiments and the aetiology of whiplash injury. 125 7.4.1 External Validity of Whiplash Experiments Experiment 2A (Chapter 3) showed that surprised'subjects responded differently to an identical perturbation than did either alerted or unalerted subjects. These differences included a larger peak retraction and lower peak horizontal mastoid acceleration in surprised female subjects, a larger PARA muscle response in surprised male subjects, and a delayed activation of both the S C M and P A R A muscles in surprised subjects of both genders. Experiment 2B (Chapter 4) showed that multiple exposures to a perturbation resulted in habituation of the neck muscle response and complex changes in the kinematic response. The amplitude of the muscle response was significantly attenuated by the second trial and significant changes in some of the kinematic variables were also present by the second trial. These findings indicated that the responses of event-aware subjects, and in particular the responses of subjects presented with more than one perturbation, were different than the first response of surprised subjects. Since all of the previous experiments using human subjects to study the biomechanics of whiplash injury used subject-warning protocols that fell somewhere between the alerted and unalerted conditions used in Experiment 2A, the external validity of these previously conducted studies may be lower than previously thought. Despite a reduced external validity, the combined results of the experiments conducted for this thesis did not rule out a role for human subject testing in the study of whiplash injury. The gross motion and muscle response of aware subjects exposed to a single perturbation might still provide some insight into the biomechanics of whiplash injury. For instance, some gender-based differences in the kinematic responses were present in both the surprised and aware subjects and could potentially be studied under aware conditions. In addition, the stabilized responses of subjects who have habituated to a perturbation might still provide useful information in parametric studies designed to measure the relative effect of some variable or intervention on subject response. Indeed, the latter two experiments in this thesis were based on this premise. The results of the current experiments did show, however, that human subject experiments need to be designed to account for subject awareness and habituation and the results of these experiments need to be interpreted carefully in the context of their reduced external validity. 7.4.2 The Aetiology of Whiplash Injury Perhaps the most important outcome of these experiments was the knowledge that subjects responded differently to an unexpected perturbation than to a perturbation they knew was imminent. This finding paralleled epidemiological evidence which has shown that being unprepared for a collision increased the risk of whiplash injury (Sturzenegger et al., 1994, 1995). As a result, differences between the biomechanical response of the surprised and aware subjects might provide 126 some insight into factors that affect the aetiology of whiplash injury. In this regard, the increased retraction and decreased mastoid acceleration observed in surprised female subjects may be particularly important. These larger retraction motions were not associated with significantly larger head extension angles, a finding that suggested surprised subjects attempted to keep their head upright at the expense of increased retraction. A larger retraction would cause larger strains in the ligamentous tissues of the cervical spine. If the increased retraction observed in the surprised female subjects were distributed evenly between the joints of the cervical spine, about 1 mm of additional translation would occur between each pair of cervical vertebra. Based on a linear fit to data presented by Siegmund et al. (2000b), this additional motion would increase the maximum principal strain in the facet joint capsular ligaments by about 0.03. On average, this increase in strain was about 9 percent of the 0.35 \u00C2\u00B1 0.21 strain reported by these authors to cause sub-catastrophic failure of these ligaments. When the entire range of sub-catastrophic failure strains (0.11 to 0.80) reported by these authors was considered, the 0.03 increase in strain implied by the larger retraction motions amounted to between 4 and 27 percent of the sub-catastrophic failure strains. This comparison suggested that, in some individuals, the larger retraction observed here could result in relatively large increases in capsular ligament strain and increased potential for injury. This suggestion is consistent with clinical evidence that has isolated the cervical facet joints as the source of pain in about half of a population with chronic whiplash pain (Lord et al., 1996). Though in need of additional investigation, the results of the current study provided a possible biomechanical explanation for why unprepared female occupants have an increased risk of whiplash injury. In Experiment 2A, a mechanism was proposed to explain why a larger retraction and lower mastoid acceleration was isolated to female subjects. This mechanism relied on a difference in how male and female subjects scaled the amplitude of their muscle response when perturbed unexpectedly. Possibly due to a large variance in the E M G data, this component of the mechanism did not reach statistical significance in post-hoc analyses performed on the current data. The likelihood of such a difference could, however, be inferred from the kinematic data. The mechanism underlying such a gender difference was not readily apparent. It might be that males have learned to scale their neck muscle response to unexpected stimuli through increased exposure to these types of stimuli, however, such an explanation is speculative. Further work is needed to explore these potential gender differences in muscle activation during unexpected perturbations and whether these differences contribute to the increased incidence of whiplash injury in females. 7.5 Conclusions The results of the current studies indicated that differences in prior knowledge related to the 127 presence of a whiplash-like perturbation (event awareness) had a larger effect on the resulting muscle and kinematic responses than did prior knowledge related to the timing of the perturbation (temporal awareness). Prior knowledge of the perturbation intensity (amplitude awareness) did not affect the muscle or kinematic responses over the range of perturbation intensities used in these experiments. Multiple exposures to a whiplash-like perturbation resulted in habituation of the reflex muscle response. Kinematic changes related to this habituation produced both increases in the amplitude of some kinematic parameters and decreases in the amplitude of other kinematic parameters. Together, these results called into question the external validity of many previous experiments using human subjects to study the biomechanics of whiplash injury. Future human subject testing should consider the effects of both subject awareness and habituation, and incorporate these effects into both the design of their experimental protocol and the interpretation of their results. 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allum, J.H., Bloem, B.R., Carpenter, M.G. , Hulliger, M . , & Hadders-Algra, M . (1998). Proprioceptive control of posture: A review of new concepts. Gait and Posture, 8, 214-242. Allum, J.H.J., Gresty, M . , Keshner, E. & Shupert, C. (1997). The control of head movements during human balance corrections. Journal of Vestibular Research, 7, 189-218. Allum, J.H.J., Honegger, F., & Keshner, E.A. (1992). Head-trunk coordination in man: Is trunk angular velocity elicited by a support surface movement the only factor influencing head stabilization. In A. Bethoz, W. Graf, & P.P. Vidal (Eds). The head-neck sensory motor system (pp. 571-575). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Balla, J.I. (1980). The late whiplash syndrome. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 50. 610-615. Bisdorff, A.R., Bronstein, A . M . , & Gresty, M.A. (1994). Responses in neck and facial muscles to sudden free fall and a startling auditory stimulus. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 93, 409-416. Bisdorff, A.R., Bronstein, A . M . , Wolsley, C , Gresty, M.A. , Davies, A., & Young, A. (1999). E M G responses to free fall in elderly subjects and akinetic rigid patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 66, 447-455. Blumenthal, T.D. (1996). Inhibition of the human startle response is affected by both prepulse intensity and eliciting stimulus intensity. Biological Psychology. 44, 85-104. Bogduk, N. (1986). The anatomy and pathophysiology of whiplash. Clinical Biomechanics, L 92-101. Bogduk, N., & Teasell, R. (2000). Whiplash. The evidence for an organic etiology. Archives of Neurology, 57, 590-591. Bonato, P., D'Alessio, T., & Knaflitz, M . (1998). A statistical method for the measurement of muscle activation intervals from surface myoelectric signals during gait. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 45, 287-299. Bostrom, O., Fredriksson, R., Haland, Y. , Jakobsson, L . , Krafft, M . , Lovsund, P., Muser, M . H . , & Svensson, M.Y. (2000). Comparison of car seats in low speed rear-end impacts using the BioRID dummy and the new neck injury criterion (NIC). Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 321-328. Brault, J.B., Wheeler, J.B., Siegmund, G.P., & Brault, E.J. (1998). Clinical response of human subjects to rear-end automobile impacts. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 129 79, 72-80. Brault, J.R., Siegmund, G.P., & Wheeler, J.B. (2000). Cervical muscle response during whiplash: Evidence of a lengthening muscle contraction. Clinical Biomechanics, 15, 426-435. Brown, P., Day, B.L. , Rothwell, J . C , Thompson, P.D., & Marsden, C D . (1991a). The effect of posture on the normal and pathological auditory startle reflex. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 54. 892-897. Brown, P., Rothwell, J . C , Thompson, P.D., Britton, T . C , Day, B.L. , & Marsden, C D . (1991b). New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain, 114, 1891-1902. Brunia, C.H.M. (1993). Waiting in readiness: Gating in attention and motor preparation. Psychophysiology, 30, 327-339. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, JJL: Rand McNally. Castro, W.H.M. , Schilgen, M . , Meyer, S., Weber, M . , Peuker, C , & Wortler, K. (1997). Do \"whiplash injuries\" occur in low-speed rear impacts? European Spine Journal, 6. 366-375. Chokroverty, S., Walczak, T., & Hening, W. (1992). Human startle reflex: Technique and criteria for abnormal response. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 85, 236-242. Chong, R.K.Y. , Horak, F.B., & Woollacott, M.H. (1999). Time-dependent influence of sensorimotor set on automatic responses in perturbed stance. Experimental Brain Research, 124, 513-519. Cioni, B., & Meglio, M . (1986). Epidural recordings of electrical events produced in the spinal cord by segmental, ascending and descending volleys. Applied Neurophysiology, 49, 315-326. Conover, W.J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Corcos, D .M. , Gottlieb, G.L. , Latash, M . L . , Almeida, G.L. , & Agarwal, G.C. (1992). Electromechanical delay; An experimental artifact. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2, 59-68. Corna, S., Ito, Y. , von Brevem, M . , Bronstein, A . M . , & Gresty, M . A . (1996). Reflex 'unloading' and 'defensive capitulation' responses in human neck muscles. Journal of Physiology, 496.2. 589-596. Davidsson, J., Deutscher, C , Hell, W., Linder, A., Lovsund, P., & Svensson, M.Y. (1998). Human volunteer kinematics in rear-end sled collisions. Proceedings of the 1998 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact (pp. 289-301). Bron, France: IRCOBI Secretariat. Davis, M . (1984). The mammalian startle response. In R.C. Eaton (Ed.), Neural mechanisms 130 of startle behavior (pp. 287-351). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Deans, G.T., Magalliard, J.N., Kerr, M . , & Rutherford, W.H. (1987). Neck sprain - a major cause of disability following car accidents. Injury, 18, 10-12. Diener, H.C., Dichgans, J., Bootz, F., & Bacher, M . (1984). Early stabilization of human posture after a sudden disturbance: Influence of rate and amplitude of displacement. Experimental Brain Research, 56, 126-134. Diener, H.C., Horak, F.B., & Nashner, L . M . (1988). Influence of stimulus parameters on human postural responses. Journal of Neurophysiology, 59, 1888-1905. Dietz, V. , Quintern, J., & Sillem, M . (1987). Stumbling reactions in man: Significance of proprioceptive and pre-programmed mechanism. Journal of Physiology, 386, 149-163. Evans, R.W. (1992). Some observations on whiplash injuries. Neurologic Clinics: The Neurology of Trauma, 10, 975-997. Forssberg, H. , & Hirschfeld, H. (1994). Postural adjustments in sitting humans following external perturbations: Muscle activity and kinematics. Experimental Brain Research, 97, 515-527. Foss, J.A., Ison, J.R., Torre, J.P., Jr., & Wansack, S. (1989). The acoustic startle response: I. Effect of stimulus repetition, intensity, and intensity changes. Human Factors, 31, 307-318. Foust, D.R., Chaffin, D.B., Snyder, R.G. , & Baum, J.K. (1973). Cervical range of motion and dynamic response and strength of cervical muscles. Proceedings of the 17th Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 285-307). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Frank, J.S. (1986). Spinal motor preparation in humans. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 63, 361-370. Geigl, B.C. , Steffan, H. , Leinzinger, P., Roll, Muhlbauer, M . , & Bauer, G. (1994). The movement of head and cervical spine during rearend impact. Proceedings of the 1994 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact (pp. 127-137). Bron, France: IRCOBI Secretariat. Gordon, J., & Ghez, C. (1991). Muscle receptors and spinal reflexes: The stretch reflex. In E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz & T . M . Jessell (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed., pp. 564-580). East Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. Gresty, M . (1989). Stability of the head in pitch (neck flexion-extension): Studies in normal subjects and patients with axial rigidity. Movement Disorders, 4, 233-248. Gutierrez, G. (1978). A discrete parameter model of the head and neck with neuromuscular feedback (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western University, 1978). University Microfilms International. 7909433. Halonen, J.P., Jones, S.J., Edgar, M.A. , & Ransford, A.O. (1989). Conduction properties of 131 epidurally recorded spinal cord potentials following lower limb stimulation in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 74, 161-174. Hansen, P.D., Woollacott, M.H. , & Debu, B. (1988). Postural responses to changing task conditions. Experiment Brain Research, 73, 627-636. Harris, J.D. (1943). Habituatory response decrement in the intact organism. Psychological Bulletin, 40(6), 385-422. Horak, F.B., Diener, H.C., & Nashner, L . M . (1989). Influence of central set on human postural responses. Journal of Neurophysiology, 62, 841-853. Horak, F.B., Shupert, C.L. , Biets, V . , & Horstmann, G. (1994). Vestibular and somatosensory contributions to responses to head and body displacements in stance. Experimental Brain Research, 100, 93-106. Ito, Y. , Coma, S., von Brevern, M . , Bronstein, A. , & Gresty, M . (1997). The functional effectiveness of neck muscle reflexes for head-righting in response to sudden fall. Experimental Brain Research, 117, 266-272. Ito, Y. , Coma, S., von Brevem, M . , Bronstein, A., Rothwell, J., & Gresty, M . (1995). Neck muscle responses to abrupt free fall of the head: Comparison of normal with labyrinthine-defective human subjects. Journal of Physiology, 489.3, 911-916. Jakobsson, L . , Lundell, B., Norin, H. , & Isaksson-Hellman, I. (2000). WHIPS - Volvo's whiplash protection study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 307-319. Kably, B., & Drew, T. (1998). Corticoreticular pathways in the cat. I. Projection patterns and collateralization. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80, 389-405. Kahane, C.J. (1982). An evaluation of head restraints - Federal motor vehicle safety standard 202 (DOT HS-806 108). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Kandel, E.R. (1991). Cellular mechanisms of learning and the biological basis of individuality. In E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz, & T . M . Jessell (Eds.), Principles of neural science (3rd ed., pp. 1009-1031). East Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. Kaneoka, K., Ono, K., Inami, S., & Hayashi, K. (1999). Motion analysis of cervical vertebrae during whiplash loading. Spine, 24, 763-770. Keshner, E.A. , Allum, J.H.J., & Pfalz, C R . (1987). Postural coactivation and adaptation in the sway stabilizing responses of normals and patients with bilateral vestibular deficit. Experimental Brain Research. 69, 77-92. Keshner, E.A. , Woollacott, M.H. , & Debu, B. (1988). Neck, trunk and limb muscle response during postural perturbations in humans. Experimental Brain Research, 71, 455-466. 132 Koch, M . (1999). The neurobiology of startle. Progress in Neurobiology, 59, 107-128. Krafft, M . , Kullgren, A., Tingvall, C , Bostrom, O., & Fredriksson, R. (2000). How crash severity influences short- and long-term consequences to the neck. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 187-195. Kumar, S., Narayan, Y. , & Amell, T. (2000). Role of awareness in head-neck acceleration in low velocity rear-end impacts. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 233-241. Kumar, S., Narayan, Y. , & Amell, T. (2001). An electromyographic study of low velocity rearend impacts [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Whiplash Associated Disorders, Berne, Switzerland, March 8-10. Landis, C , & Hunt, W.A. (1939). The startle pattern. New York, NY: Farrar & Rinehart. Laughlin, D.A. (1998). Digital filtering for improved automotive vehicle and crash testing with M H D angular rate sensors. Albuquerque, N M : A T A Sensors Inc., http://www.atasensors.com/apps.html Lingenhohl, K., & Friauf, E . (1992). Giant neurons in the caudal pontine reticular formation receive short latency acoustic input: An intracellular recording and HRP-study in the rat. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 325, 473-492. Lingenhohl, K., & Friauf, E. (1994). Giant neurons in the rat reticular formation: A sensorimotor interface in the elementary acoustic startle circuit? Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 1176-1194. Lipp, O.V., Siddle, D.A.T. , & Dall, P.J. (2000). The effect of warning stimulus modality on blink startle modification in reaction time tasks. Psychophysiology, 37, 55-64. Lord, S.M., Barnsley, L . , Wallis, B.J., & Bogduk, N. (1996). Chronic cervical zygapophyseal joint pain after whiplash, A placebo-controlled prevalence study. Spine, 21, 1737-1745. Lovsund, P., Nygren, A., Salen, B., & Tingvall, C (1988). Neck injuries in rear end collisions among front and rear seat occupants. Proceedings of 1988 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact (pp. 319-326). IRCOBI Secretariat, Bron, France. Magnusson, M . L . , Pope, M.H. , Hasselquist, L . , Bolte, K . M . , Ross, M . , Goel, V .K. , Lee, J.S., Spratt, K., Clark, C.R., & Wilder, D.G. (1999). Cervical electromyographic activity during low-speed rear impact. European Spine Journal, 8, 118-125. Maschke, M . , Drepper, J., Kindsvater, K., Kolb, F.P., Diener, H.C., & Timmann, D. (2000). Involvement of the human medial cerebellum in long-term habituation of the acoustic startle response. Experiment Brain Research, 133, 359-367. Matsushita, T., Sato, T.B., Hirabayashi, K., Fujimara, A. , Asazuma, T., & Takatori, T. (1994). X-ray study of the human neck due to hear inertia loading (942208). Proceedings of the 38th 133 Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 55-64). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Matsuyama, K., & Drew, T. (1997). Organization of the projections from the pericruciate cortex to the pontomedullary brainstem of the cat: A study using the anterograde tracer Phaseolus vulgaris-leucoagglutinin. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 389, 617-641. Mazzini, L . , & Schieppati, M . (1992). Activation of the neck muscles from the ipsi- or contralateral hemisphere during voluntary head movements in humans, A reaction-time study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 85, 183-189. McConnell, W.E. , Howard, R.P., Guzman, H.M. , Bomar, J.B., Raddin, J.H., Benedict, J.V., Smith, H.L. , & Hatsell, C P . (1993). Analysis of human test subject kinematic responses to low velocity rear end impacts (930889). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. McConnell, W.E. , Howard, R.P., Van Poppel, J., Krause, R., Guzman, H.M. , Bomar, J.B., Raddin, J.H, Benedict, J.V., & Hatsell, C P . (1995). Human head and neck kinematics after low velocity rear-end impacts - Understanding whiplash (952724). Proceedings of the 39th Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 215-238). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Mcllroy, W.E., & Maki, B.E. (1994). The 'deceleration response' to transient perturbation of upright stance. Neuroscience Letters, 175, 13-16. Mertz, H.J., & Patrick, L . M . (1967). Investigations of the kinematics and kinetics of whiplash (670919). Proceedings of the 11th Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 267-317). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Meyer, S., Weber, M . , Castro, W., Schilgen, M . , & Peuker, C. (1998). The minimal collision velocity for whiplash. In R. Gunzberg, & M . Szpalski (Eds.), Whiplash injuries: Current concepts in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the cervical whiplash syndrome (pp. 95-116). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Nashner, L . M . (1976). Adapting reflexes controlling the human posture. Experimental Brain Research, 26, 59-72. Nashner, L . M . (1985). Strategies for organization of human posture. In: M . Igarashi & F.O. Black (Eds.), Vestibular and visual control on posture and locomotor equilibrium (pp. 1-8). Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Nygren, A., Gustafsson, H , & Tingvall, C. (1985). Effects of different types of headrests in rear-end collisions. Proceedings of the 10th Experimental Safety Vehicle Conference (pp. 85-90). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Olney, D.B., & Marsden, A .K. (1986). The effect of head restraints and seat belts on the incidence of neck injury in car accidents. Injury. 17, 365-367. 134 O'Neill, B., Haddon, W., Kelley, A.B. , & Sorenson, W.W. (1972). Automobile head restraints - Frequency of neck injury in relation to the presence of head restraints. American Journal of Public Health. (March) pp. 399-406. Ono, K., Kaneoka, K., Wittek, A. , & Kajzer, J. (1997). Cervical injury mechanism based on the analysis of human cervical vertebral motion and head-neck-torso kinematics during low speed rear impact (973340). Proceedings of the 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 339-356). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Ono, K., & Kanno, M . (1996). Influence of the physical parameters on the risk to neck injuries in low impact speed rear-end collisions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28, 493-499. Otremski, I., Marsh, J.L., Wilde, B.R., McLardy Smith, P.D., & Newman, R.J. (1989) Soft tissue cervical spinal injuries in motor vehicle accidents. Injury. 20, 349-351. Otte, D., & Rether, J.R. (1985). Risk and mechanisms of injuries to the cervical spine in traffic accidents. Proceedings of the International Research Committee on Biokinetics of Impact (pp. 17-31). Bron, France: IRCOBI Secretariat. Panjabi, M . M . , Cholewicki, J., Nibu, K., Babat, L.B. , & Dvorak, J. (1998). Simulation of whiplash trauma using whole cervical spines. Spine, 23, 17-24. Pellet, J. (1990) Neural organization in the brainstem curcuit mediating the primary acoustic head startle: An electrophysiological study in the rat. Physiology & Behavior, 48, 727-739. Peterson, B.W. (1988). Cervicocollic and cervicoocular reflexes. In B.W. Peterson & F.J. Richmond (Eds), Control of head movement (pp. 90-99). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pope, M . H . , Aleksiev, A. , Hasselquist, L . , Magnusson, M.L . , Spratt, K. , & Szpalski, M . (1998). Neurophysiologic mechanisms of low-velocity non-head-contact cervical acceleration. In R. Gunzberg & M . Szpalski (Eds.), Whiplash injuries: Current concepts in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the cervical whiplash syndrome (pp. 89-93). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Schicatano, E.J., & Blumenthal, T.D. (1998). The effect of caffeine and directed attention on acoustic startle habituation. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 59, 145-150. Severy, D .M. , Mathewson, J.H., & Bechtol, C O . (1955). Controlled automobile rear-end collisions, An investigation of related engineering and medical phenomena. Canadian Services Medical Journal, 11. 727-759. Siegmund, G.P., & King, D.J. (1997). Low-speed impacts: Understanding the dynamics of low-speed, rear-end impacts; Methods of investigation and of quantifying their severity. In: T. Bohan (Ed.), Forensic accident investigations. Vol. 2 (pp. 5-110). Charlottesville, V A : Lexis Law Publishing. 135 Siegmund, G.P., King, D.J., Lawrence, J .M. , Wheeler, J.B., Brault, J.R., & Smith, T.A. (1997). Head/neck kinematic response of human subjects in low-speed rear-end collisions (973341). Proceedings of the 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 357-385). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Siegmund, G.P., Inglis, J.T., & Sanderson, D J . (2000a). Readiness to perform a ballistic head movement sculpts the acoustic startle response of neck muscles. Society for Neuroscience 2000 Abstracts, 1, 64.9. Siegmund, G.P., Myers, B.S., Davis, M.B. , Bohnet, H.F., & Winkelstein, B.A. (2000b). Human cervical motion segment flexibility and facet capsular ligament strain under combined posterior shear, extension and axial compression. Proceedings of the 44 th Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 159-170). Ann Arbor, MI: Stapp Association. Siegmund, G.P., & Heinrichs, B.E. (2001). The neck injury criterion (NIC) correlates better with collision acceleration than speed change [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Whiplash Associated Disorders, Berne, Switzerland, March 8-10. Siegmund, G.P., Inglis, J.T., Myers, B.S., & Sanderson, D.J. (2001a). Neck muscle response and head kinematics of human subjects adapt to multiple whiplash exposures. [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Whiplash Associated Disorders, Berne, Switzerland, March 8-10. Siegmund, G.P., Inglis, J.T., & Sanderson, D.J. (2001b). Startle response of human neck muscles sculpted by readiness to perform ballistic head movements. Journal of Physiology, 535.1, 289-300. Silverstein, L.D. , Graham, F.K., & Bohlin G. (1981). Selective attention effects on the reflex blink. Psychophysiology, 18, 240-247. Snyder, R.G., Chaffin, D.B., & Foust, D.R. (1975). Bioengineering study of basic physical measurements related to susceptibility to cervical hyperextension-hyperflexion injury (Report No. UM-HSRI-BI-75-6). Washington DC: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Sturzenegger, M . , DiStefano, G., Radanov, B.P., & Schnidrig, A. (1994). Presenting symptoms and signs after whiplash injury: The influence of accident mechanisms. Neurology 44, 688-693. Sturzenegger, M . , Radanov, B.P., & Di Stefano, G. (1995). The effect of accident mechanisms and initial findings on the long-term course of whiplash injury. Journal of Neurology 242, 443-449. Suissa, S. (2001). Risk factors for poor prognosis after whiplash injury [Abstract]. Proceedings of the International Congress on Whiplash Associated Disorders, Berne, Switzerland, March 8-10. 136 Szabo, T.J., Welcher, J.B., Anderson, R.D., Rice, M . M . , Ward, J A . , Paulo, L.R., & Carpenter, N.J. (1994). Human occupant kinematic response to low speed rear-end impacts (940532). In Occupant containment and methods of assessing occupant protection in the crash environment (SP-1045, pp. 23-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Szabo, T.J., & Welcher, J.B. (1996). Human subject kinematics and electromyographic activity during low speed rear impacts. Proceedings of the 40th Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 295-315). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Timmann, D., & Horak, F.B. (1997). Prediction and set-dependent scaling of early postural response in cerebellar patients. Brain, 120, 327-337. Valldeoriola, F., Valls-Sole, J., Tolosa, E . , Ventura, P.J., Nobbe, F.A., & Marti, M.J. (1998). Effects of a startling acoustic stimulus on reaction time in different parkinsonian syndromes. Neurology, 51. 1315-1320. Valls-Sole, J., Rothwell, J . C , Goulart, F., Cossu, G. , & Mufioz, E. (1999). Patterned ballistic movements triggered by a startle in healthy humans. Journal of Physiology, 516.3, 931-938. Valls-Sole, J., Sole, A. , Valldeoriola, F., Mufioz, E . , Gonzalea, L . E . , & Tolosa, E.S. (1995). Reaction time and acoustic startle in normal human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 195, 97-100. Valls-Sole, J., Valldeoriola, F., Tolosa, E . , & Nobbe, F. (1997). Habituation of the auditory startle reaction is reduced during preparation for execution of a motor task in normal human subjects. Brain Research. 751. 155-159. van den Kroonenberg, A. , Philippens, M . , Cappon, H. , Wismans, J., Hell, W., & Langwieder, K. (1998). Human head-neck response during low-speed rear end impacts. Proceedings of the 42n d Stapp Car Crash Conference (pp. 207-221). Warrendale PA: Society of Automotive Engineering. van Koch, M . , Kullgren, A., Lie, A., Nygren, A. , & Tingvall, C. (1995). Soft tissue injuries of the cervical spine in rear-end and frontal car collisions. Proceedings of International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact (pp. 273-283). Bron, France: IRCOBI Secretariat. Vibert, N., MacDougall, H.G., de Waele, C , Gilchrist, D.P.D., Burgess, A . M . , Sidis, A. , Migliaccio, A. , Curthoys, I.S., & Vidal, P.P. (2001). Variability in the control of head movements in seated humans: A link with whiplash injury? Journal of Physiology, 532.3. 851-868. Vidailhet, M . , Rothwell, J . C , Thompson, P.D., Lees, A.J. , & Marsden, C D . (1992). The auditory startle response in the Stelle-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome and Parkinson's disease. Brain. 115. 1181-1192. Winkelstein, B.A., & Myers, B.S. (2000). The cervical motion segment, combined loading, muscle forces, and the facet joint: A mechanical hypothesis for whiplash injury. In N. Yoganandan, & F.A. Pintar (Eds.), Frontiers in whiplash trauma: Clinical and biomechanical (pp. 248-262). 137 Amsterdam: IOS Press. Winters, J. (1988). Biomechanical modeling of the human head and neck. In B.W. Peterson & F J . Richmond (Eds.), Control of head movement (pp. 22-36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Woollacott, M . H . , von Hosten, C. & Rosblad, B. (1988). Relation between muscle response onset and body segmental movements during postural perturbations in humans. Experimental Brain Research, 72. 593-604. Wu, M.-F. , Suzuki, S.S., & Siegel, J.M. (1988). Anatomical distribution and response pattern of reticular neurons active in relation to acoustic startle. Brain Research, 457, 199-406. Yeomans, J.S., & Frankland, P.W. (1996). The acoustic startle reflex: neurons and connections. Brain Research Reviews, 21, 301-314. Yoganandan, N , Pintar, F.A., & Kleinberger, M . (1999). Whiplash injury, biomechanical experimentation [Editorial]. Spine, 24, 83-85. Zimmerman, D.W., & Zumbo, B.D. (1992). The relative power of parametric and nonparameteric statistical methods. In G. Keren, & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences. Vol. I: Methodological issues (pp. 481-517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 138 APPENDIX A DETECTION OF MOVEMENT ONSET A . l Introduction The time at which movement begins in response to a stimulus is commonly determined from transducer data. Movement onset times estimated in this manner have previously been shown to be affected by the type of task, the test apparatus used, the specific transducer's properties and the type of signal processing performed before data acquisition (Corcos et al., 1992). These authors demonstrated that earlier and more accurate onset times could be determined if the movement task had a rapid onset, if the transducer was applied directly to the subject rather than to an object moved by the subject, if the transducer had a low detection threshold, and if a high gain was used to amplify the transducer's signal before data acquisition. Even after an experimental setup has been optimized as described above, a point in time within the data acquired from the transducer must still be identified as the onset of movement. The task of identifying the transition from a pre-movement signal containing only noise to a post-movement signal containing both movement and noise is not trivial. Often, a threshold level is selected based on some multiple of the pre-stimulus noise and then movement onset is considered to have occurred when the transducer signal exceeds this threshold. Unfortunately, this method produces an estimate of the onset time which is delayed relative to the true movement onset, i.e., movement must have occurred prior to the threshold being reached in order for the threshold to be reached. The goal of this analysis was to develop an algorithm that minimized this bias and thereby provided a better estimate of the actual movement onset time. A.2 Mathematical Development Assume that a measured signal m(t) consists of noise n(t) prior to the onset to of movement and a combination of the actual movement signal s(t) and noise n(t) after the onset of movement (Figure A.l ) . If a fixed onset threshold C is used, then for every value of C greater than the amplitude of the noise n(t), the onset time t* determined using this threshold results in a delayed estimate, or positively-biased estimate, of the actual onset time to- The positive bias can be minimized by selecting a threshold C that is only slightly larger than the pre-movement noise level, however, the risk of falsely detecting onset increases as C is reduced. Therefore, in practice, a balance is sought between a low threshold to minimize the bias introduced in the onset time and a high threshold to minimize falsely detecting spurious noise as the onset of movement. 139 m(t) C 4 tg-iAt t0+iAt to Figure A . l Sample signal m(t) and its actual onset time to- Using a set onset threshold C, the estimated onset time t* is a biased estimate of the actual onset time to-An alternate method of achieving improved onset times is to negatively bias the signal by an amount equal to the positive bias introduced by the threshold technique, and to then use a similarly transformed threshold on this negatively-biased signal. A common method of generating a phase-led version of a signal is differentiation. The phase-leading derivative mi (t) leads the actual signal m(t) by 90 degrees and therefore reaches threshold sooner. Unfortunately, differentiation also increases noise, a side-effect that eliminates the possibility of successive differentiation as a method of producing increasingly better estimates of movement onset times. This side-effect of differentiation can be overcome by only differentiating the measured signal once using a carefully selected window across which the derivative is computed by finite differences. The width of the finite-differences window determines the amount of negative bias introduced into m,(0 at a given frequency. Therefore, the width of the differentiation window can be tuned to produce the negative bias needed to offset the positive bias introduced by using a threshold. Let the width of the moving window used in the finite differentiation be equal to 2iAt, where i is half the number of discrete sampling intervals spanned by the window, and At is the sampling period used to acquire the data (Figure A. 1). The derivative mi {t) for a given half window width is then be calculated as follows: m,.(f) = m(t + iAt) - m(t - iAt) 2iAt (1) 140 At the actual onset time, t = to, the value of this derivative is m(t0 + iAt) - m(tQ - iAt) mM = ~ 0 . A , (2) 2iAt From the pre-stimulus data, or data known to precede movement onset, the maximum value of rhjit) within the noise-only portion of the signal can be determined for a given window width. If the maximum amplitude of the pre-stimulus noise is \u00C2\u00AB 1 T M X = max | n(t) \, then the maximum possible value of m*(t) is given by the following equation: / \u00C2\u00BB ; ( 0 = ( N M M \" ( ~ W M \" ) ) , or 2iAt ( 3 ) mt(t) = \"max iAt A multiplier c> 1 can then used to define a threshold value cm (t), above which onset is deemed to have occurred. Equating mi (t0 ) in Equation 2 to cm* (t) yields an equation in which the half window size i is defined in terms of the multiplier c, the sampling interval At, and the maximum level of noise in the pre-movement data n^. thfifo) = cm* (t) (4) Substituting Equations 2 and 3 into Equation 4 yields, m(t0 + iAt) - m(t0 - iAt) cn^ 2iAt iAt and simplification yields, m(t0 + iAt) - m(t0 - iAt) = 2cn m a x (6) Since on average, m(to - iAt) is equal to zero, Equation 6 can be further simplified to, m(r 0 +/A0 = 2 c \u00C2\u00AB m a x (7) In order to solve this equation for the half window width /, a mathematical model of the actual response signal must be used. This artificial representation of the signal s(t) can then be used to 141 solve for i. Any increasing function M(t) can be used and need not be continuous at to; it must however adequately model s(t) in the region of iAt seconds after its onset. For purposes of this derivation, a partial sine wave of frequency^, was used to model the onset of movement. M(t) = A ( 1 + sin Q)(t-t0)-71 for t > tn (8) Substituting Equation 8 into 7 yields, 1 + sin 2cn\u00E2\u0080\u009E (9) and solving for the half window width iAt yields, iAt = 1 i ' 2cnm\u00E2\u0080\u009E \ Tt sin max -1 + \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l A ) 2_ (10) Equation 10 demonstrates that the half window width is a function of the pre-movement noise in a signal (\u00C2\u00ABmax), the multiplier (c) chosen as the threshold value, and both the amplitude (A) and frequency (fa) of the signal used to model the actual movement. Based on Equation 10, and an threshold of c=1.5, a relationship between the half window size in milliseconds and the ratio of peak noise in the measured signal to peak amplitude of the model signal was constructed (Figure A.2). This figure shows the optimum half window size needed to eliminate the bias introduced by using a fixed threshold value of c=1.5 for signals of varying frequencies. Windows shorter than that recommended in Figure A.2 yield onset times that are delayed relative to the actual onset of the signal. Longer windows yield onset times that are earlier than the actual onset of the signal. The shallow slope of the various frequency lines indicated that the optimal size of the half window was relatively insensitive to inexact estimates of either the noise ratio or the frequency of the sine wave used to model the actual signal. A.3 Performance of the Algorithm Because the algorithm incorporates the maximum values of a noise signal over a finite period of time, this value is necessarily an estimate of the actual maximum level of the noise that exists in the signal after time t0. To evaluate the possible error introduced by this estimate of the maximum noise, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. For this simulation, a signal described by Equation 8 142 1 HZ 2 3 - 5 - 7 - 1 0 - 1 5 ' 2 0 \" 3 0 - 5 0 0.1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 Peak Noise/Peak Signal Amplitude Figure A.2 Optimal half window size as a function of the peak noise to peak amplitude ratio and frequency for signals with onsets that can be modeled with a sinusoidal. The dashed line shows that for a 5 Hz signal with 2% noise, the half window size would be about 10 ms. Note logarithmic scales. (A=1.0 and ax=2nfa, where/a=5 Hz) and shown in Figure A . l was used. This signal was similar to the torso and head accelerometer data observed in the studies performed in this thesis. For the simulation, onset occurred at 100 ms and uniformly distributed noise between \u00C2\u00B12% of the peak amplitude of the signal was added to the signal (SNR-28 dB). A threshold multiple of c=1.5 was used. The dashed line in Figure A.2 shows that the appropriate half window size for this combination of parameters was 11 ms. A sampling rate of 2 kHz was simulated, thereby providing a resolution of 0.5 ms. All of the values selected for this simulation, aside from the onset time, were similar to values used for determining the onset time of the torso and head acceleration in the studies contained in this thesis. Onset times were estimated by computing rhft) using a half window of 11 ms and then determining when this value exceeded the threshold given in Equation 5. For comparison, an estimate of movement onset was also computed using a threshold of 1.5xnoise applied to the actual signal. The results of a simulation with 10 000 iterations are shown in Table A . l . These results showed that a threshold technique applied to the actual signal estimated an onset time that was delayed 7.3 \u00C2\u00B1 1.1 ms relative to the actual onset of the signal at 100 ms. The technique derived above estimated an onset time that was 0.5 \u00C2\u00B1 1.2 ms ahead of the actual onset, or within one sampling interval of the actual movement onset. 143 Table A . l Mean (S.D.) of onset times for both algorithms from the Monte Carlo simulation. Estimated onset time (ms) Threshold applied to actual signal m(t) 107.3 (1.1) Derived algorithm 99.5 (1.2) Difference 7.8 (1.7) A sensitivity analysis was also conducted for the two model-signal parameters A and/ a . For this simulation, both parameters that uniformly varied between \u00C2\u00B120 percent of the values used in the previous simulation. This sensitivity analysis revealed that 10 percent of the variance in the onset time was related to the frequency estimate fa and 90 percent of the variance was related to the amplitude estimate A. Despite the introduction of relatively large errors in the estimates of the model-signal parameters, an onset time of 99.2 \u00C2\u00B1 2.7 ms was predicted by the algorithm during this simulation. The mean onset time was not considerably different from that estimated when only noise was varied. Despite a consistent mean, however, variations in A and/ a increased the standard deviation of the estimate by about 60 percent. These results suggested that relatively large errors in the model-parameter estimates reduced the confidence of the estimated onset time, however, if numerous trials were used to calculate the mean onset time, the results of the derived algorithm were considerably closer to the actual onset than the results obtained using the threshold technique on the actual signal. A.4 Summary Estimating movement onset times by applying a fixed threshold to transducer data produces a positively-biased (delayed) estimate of the actual movement onset time. This bias can be minimized by transforming the data into a phase-advanced form through differentiation. If the appropriate half window size is used to calculate the derivative by finite differences, the negative bias introduced by the differentiation process can be made to offset the positive bias introduced by using a threshold. The resulting movement onset time is a better estimate of the actual movement onset time than achieved using a similar threshold on the actual signal. 144 APPENDIX B TRIAL DATA FOR HABITUATION EXPERIMENT The following tables list the trial-by-trial means (S.D.) for all of the dependent variables over the eleven sequential trials of the habituation experiment documented in Chapter 4. The data were divided based on gender (female, male) and level of temporal awareness (alerted, unalerted). The number of subjects (N) in each group is given below each table and group means and group standard deviations are given at the right of each table. 145 o O ft B i T3 CN ft C3 H CN CO CO CO CO CN CN CO CO CO CN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO o O o o o o o o o IT) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n in >40 m 1/0 I/O IT) 1/0 in in SO 1 VO VO VO i VO 1 VD VO VD 1 vo 1 VD 1 VO SO vo VO VO VO VO vo vo vo vo >n CO co CO co CO co co co co CO CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094iCSOsOsOSOOOOOOOOOOOO s o m i n i n i n i n i n m m i n i n vovovovovovovovovovovo CO CN CN CO CN CN CN CO CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094' CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN C N O O O O O O O s O s O s O T t T t T t T t T t T t T t C O C O C O T t vovDVOvOvOvOvOvovovovO >n VO VO VO in in in VO VO VO in CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN f N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r -l^. \Q \Q \Q \Q \0 m n m m Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt vo so VO so SO SO VO VD SO SO SO in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 >n \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 in in in t in i in in i in i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 in in Tt Tt m Tt Tt in Tt in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n CO co co co co co CO ro co co CO PH C N O O O O r~ r\u00C2\u00BB l\u00E2\u0080\u0094 r~ r~ in in in in m Os O O O Os Os vo r~ r~ r-~ vo V D in in in m in m osr^r^r^oor~vor^t-~r^vo C N O O O O in in in m m m in m in in Os Os Os Os Os O Tt Tt Tf Tt Tt U-l in m in in m in in in Tt Tt Tt in m Tt Tt Tt Tt CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN T t CO CN CN CN oo oo oo oo oo in in m in in CN CN CN CN CN CN oo oo oo oo oo oo m m in m in in oo oo Os Os Os OS Os Os OS Os CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN C> r- r- r- cc in in in in in in in in in in oo r~ so r~ in in in in in in in in m in in in I\u00E2\u0080\u0094i C N co Tt in so o oo Os oo OS oo Os Os oo Os Os OO so r-\u00C2\u00BB oo so so VD in Tt Tt Tt Tt T3 3 ID CNVOOOOOsOsOsOs\u00E2\u0080\u0094iCNOs \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i S \u00C2\u00A3 X \"2 '5 CO C3 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 c3 H o o o o o s r ^ o o o o s o t ^ v O T t C N C O r O C N C N C N C N C N C N C N C N r~ oo os os so t ~ so so CO* * \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094' * \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' * \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \" \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094i o o ooooinr~-sor~-vosor^soso \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I C N O O S O O O O V O V O V O V O C N C N C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i - H ft 2 H O s o o \u00E2\u0084\u00A2 0 \ c o O O \u00C2\u00BB M c o r -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N c O T t i n v o t ^ o o o s \" e >< \u00E2\u0080\u00A24\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" c '5 CL -a CL 3 o L. a T t i n i n i n T t m i n i n m i n i n r ^ c o r ^ v o m i n i n T t T t T t T t CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN VD Os O O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 < \u00E2\u0080\u0094i CN CN CO OsOsoooooor^r^r^so co co co co coco co ro co OH T t T t T t C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l \u00E2\u0080\u0094 c \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 , \u00E2\u0080\u0094I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ( \u00E2\u0080\u0094i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i\u00E2\u0080\u0094ioosoooor^r~-r^oo CN CN CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i i n t ^ r ^ o o v o v o i n v o r ^ r ^ t ^ o o o o o s o o o o v o s o m i n m s o CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN MH \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l O C N C N O O O g ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094'OOsvosOvOvOmvOvOj? C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N c o T t m v o r ^ o o o s 2 - H Os 146 o o 9 o co u. O Is '5 VD o a ca H '\"8 13 ft CU jo < ft ra H \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f ro fN VI VI ro ro Tt vo Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt to \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 O VO ro o o o vq 00 00 vq VO vd 1 vd 1 vd i vd i vd 1 vd \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 io \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 io to I O co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2o Tt vq oo vq vq vq oo Ov ro ro Tt ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro oq Tt oo to ro Ov to \u00E2\u0080\u00A2o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 O io to vi >o vi to >o Tt Ov Ov Tt CN p ro oq Tt Tt Tt Tt Tt to io vi to vi Ov CN \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 O oo io ro ro oo ro I O vd vd vd \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 O to I O I O vi to io CO CO >o vo OV p Ov p vi IO Tt Tt Tt in in tf in Tt in CN q CN Ov O VO CO ro Ov r> vd r> i vd i vd vd \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 vd i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n 1 vd t o ro CN CN ro to Ov vo CN CN o Tt, 3, Tt, Tt, Tt, Tt, Tt Tt, Tt Tt, Tt vq CN CN IO \u00E2\u0080\u00941 Ov >o Ov Tt Tt CN i i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 vd i vd \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 vi vd i vi vd i vd vd CN ro Tt \u00E2\u0080\u0094-N\u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2- >\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094 *\u00E2\u0080\u0094- *\u00E2\u0080\u0094-OO to oo oo Ov ro Tt Tt O CN VO VO vo VO vo vo r-ON OO Zi _ H CN > 0 VO \u00E2\u0080\u0094i Tt Tt 0 O \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094' CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ' - S J v o o o r ^ o o o v o o o o c N ~ ~ v o v o v o v o v o r ~ r ^ r ~ -ft Tt Ov oo Tt CN CN CN OV oo oo o CN VO Ov vo CN CN ro I O oo VO Ov oo oo >o O Ov CN Tt ro CN Tt oo VO oo -1 CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094H CN CO CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094' -1 >o CN OV Ov CN m _ Ov Ov _ >nVO VO VO >n VD VO VD VO VO vo tu ca H ro CN Tt ro >n vo CO Tt VO OO in VO VO VO m vo Ov VO r> ro CN r~ o CN P~ - CN ro Tt m VO oo Ov O 00 CU 2-u 00 c ca T 3 ca tu J 3 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n ea ca H o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2a B \"3 IP ft T 3 CU tu < r ^ o v i n p - t f p a v \u00E2\u0080\u0094 < - t f r o c N ro r O T t ' i O T t i O T t i o i o i o i o i n r > ; i n r o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 j o v p T t O v v o v q cxJododoo'ovooOvOvooovOv CN 00 CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i o tf ro oo tf Ovi^OvooOvOvooooooovOv Ov r> Tt p Tt oq CO O VO vo Ov -< -< CN ro ro ro CO tf Tt Tt Tt \u00E2\u0080\u0094i CN Ov p Ov \u00E2\u0080\u0094i Ov \u00E2\u0080\u00941 ro oq ro r> t~ vd 00 oo Ov oo oo oo oo r> Tt, tf SO - H Ov Ov vo in tf-f-; CN| OV in in Tt \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n vd m v~i m zj, w w ^ c N O r - r ^ > n c> d d> d> d - ; tf vq Ov Ov Ov TtTtvq\u00E2\u0080\u0094;vqin-HOv.cNr~; r o r o r o r o c N c o c o c O T t c o a v o q o v \u00E2\u0080\u0094 < v q t f O v p v q i n l^odooodovooodovodov \u00E2\u0080\u0094i C N ro -tf in vo 00 Ov 2 o o tu PU o o u n o v o v o o o r ^ O v o v o o o o 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - S o o o v o t o c N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' O v v o r ^ r ^ i o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O V O V O V O V O O O O O O O O O O ~-i--^dd>d>c>ddc>d>c> t ^ v o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i v o i O T t r - c N - t f \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i rOrOCNCNCNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094iCNCNCNCN d d d o o o o o o o o O O O r O V O C N - t f C N l O O O v O ro-^OvONOvOvOvooovooov ~^--iddd>ddd>d>d>d> c N c N r ~ o o r - ~ v o i O T t v o v o o C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 O O O T t O s O O O V D l O T t V O O O C N O O v o o O v o o o o o o o o o o r ^ -i-^ddidiciddcicSd) c o v o T t r N O r - i o i o v o t f v o COCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 c N i n c N i o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' l o o o o o o o o v r ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O V O V O V O V O O O O O O O O O O r ^ i o c N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i i o r O T t v O t f - c o t f 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l O v c o o o r o o o i o v o - t f i o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O V O V O V O V O O O O O O O O _ ; _ ; _ ; o ' o ' o ' d d d d d l\u00E2\u0080\u0094i C N co tf- to vo r~ oo ov 2 H Ov 147 o I-I a \u00E2\u0080\u0094i fN O \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' Kl t m t 1- \t OsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsGS '\"3 CD \"c3 Pu OO OO M -1 CO O (N VI N 00000\0\OOC7>000\0\0\0\ OO\u00E2\u0080\u0094 'CN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'g^^CNCNCNCN o o o s o o o s o s ^ ^ o s o s o s o s \u00C2\u00BB ce! u. U CO o o -o c3 to _c a> u. O PU PQ H tU Osvo \u00E2\u0080\u0094 O s o o r ^ r ^ o o o o o o o o OsOsOsOSOSOsOsOs Ico o \^D\Oi^vo i / ) ' t cn^n C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094i IcO tf- SO Os O CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i tN CN !S ^ I as. asooooososososososos 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N c o - t f m s o r - o o o s o -< s 4 o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f in CO CO CN Os tf in oo oo OS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -CO tf- CO CN CN CO CN ro VO in in VO vO VO VO VO vo vo vo vo VO o o o o cn o n VO so m m so SO sO VO \u00E2\u0080\u0094H M^ MH c^tf-sor^cosovo\u00E2\u0080\u0094ivor^in O 3 ^ _ , , _ , _ , c > ) _ I _ I C N C N C N Poor\u00E2\u0080\u0094oor~-r--vooovoinin ^vososovor^sosot^c^r^ tf oo in - \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO CO in SO so Os oo so Os OS oo Os OS in >n in in m m in in m m m so SO CN CO CN OO tf- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f VO VO *\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094> \u00E2\u0080\u0094^ -\u00E2\u0080\u0094* *\u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2>\u00E2\u0080\u0094' OS Os \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO .\u00E2\u0080\u0094i d>d>d>d>od>od>d>di \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 i i i i i i i i i i (N O S ^ H fl M O V5 \u00E2\u0080\u0094i Tt Os CNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094ifOtNCNCNCNCOCNCN O O O O O O O O O O O o o c N i n t f O i n o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i t f - o s r ^ r ^ r - r ^ r - o o r ^ r ^ o o r - ~ t \u00E2\u0080\u0094 cid>d>d>d><5d>d>d>d>d> i i i i i i i i i i i co-tf-tfcoco\u00E2\u0080\u0094i h (N g m h o o o o o o o o o o d Ococooor^sooocor^r^Os s O v O v o v o v o v o v o v o v o v o v D O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I cocNcococot^vocoin-tfoo O O O O O O O O O O O tfvOOsoO\u00E2\u0080\u0094IOCNOOO\u00E2\u0080\u0094IOO r - f - t ^ r ^ o o o o o o t ^ o o o o r ^ O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l o o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i r o m r ^ i n o o r ^ v o C N O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 < \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094i \u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i O O O O O O O O O O O tf-OOsmcot^OssoOs\u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n m t f t f - t f - t f i n - t f - t f i n - t f in oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f SO t-- o o Os CO r~ CN CO CN CO co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f ro CO CN CN d d d d d d d d d d d tf \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CN OS m oo CO Os oo SO in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO tf-tu CN CO m CN CN o CO CO SO VO oo oo oo SO SO 00 d d d d d d d d d d d CO OS Os Os _, o o Os oo 00 Os SO m in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f m in so in in so in oo CN CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO in CO CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f d d d d d d d d d d d Os o CN oo Os Os so o in o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CN in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO co CO tf- tf- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f tf tf oo co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f co CN co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf co 00 CO CN co VO CO co CO CO d d d d d d d d d d d CN in tf m Os \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf m o m tf tf CO m CN tf I \u00E2\u0080\u0094i c N c o t f - i n v o r ^ o o o s 2 r t 148 o o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2a u ft \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I l< CN\u00E2\u0080\u0094i M N -1 CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i g ^ - O g ^ O CO O ON \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 o r~ r- os 00 s m u o o o o 2 o 2 oT So 00 2 f~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ CO \u00C2\u00A3 J OO O \u00E2\u0080\u0094' Z ; _ ^ 2 O 2 2 - ' - ^ O - H - H Co \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094\ O \u00E2\u0080\u0094^y -\u00E2\u0080\u0094' V\u00E2\u0080\u0094' \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094' in o o o o o o o 2 2 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094ICNCOTfU-)NDr~OOON2-H ON o O PH ON, O ON, OO CO NO in NO CN NO O NO CN O CO Tt NO NO CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094I NO NO 0 C-7 '\u00E2\u0080\u0094-CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094* NO NO SH SO 2 \u00E2\u0080\u00941 CO _t NO NO 3 ON \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n 00 3\" NO \u00E2\u0080\u0094' 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094' *\u00E2\u0080\u0094' s\u00E2\u0080\u0094' \u00E2\u0080\u0094H 0 as CN m NO NO NO in ON CN ON\" oT *\u00E2\u0080\u0094* NO *\u00E2\u0080\u0094' O oT 0? OO in CO NO ON m ON m as in NO 0 NO in T? CN ^ ' -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 O ON NO NO m in O Tt \u00E2\u0080\u00941 CO \u00E2\u0080\u00941 O CN in 00 co so t~~ r-Os so 00 ON Tt \u00E2\u0080\u00941 NO NO r- r-~ T t i n N O T t N O o o ^ O T t i n i n N O C N C N O N O O O N - H C O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O so NO in in in so NO SO NO NO NO I \u00E2\u0080\u00941 cNrOTt inNOr^ooON O \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 o a CN X e .0 o 0 C3 u 0 o H4 T3 '5 c\u00C2\u00AB. m c3 H 3 T t N O C N i n c N i n c o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 COCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN d>d>c>d>od>d>d> CN 00 Tt Tt -H in Tt CN CO CN o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^ - i - : -< ~: ~*. ~~: ~: d 0 0 o o o o o o o o t^\u00E2\u0080\u0094iNOr^incNoor^ooinTt \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 , 0 0 0 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O O O -HcOTtcNoo -Hin incocooo TtCOCOCOCNCOCNCNCNCN-H o o d 0 d o O O O 0 O in r-~ t-- os Tt r~ -H NO CN CN NO co -4 S - 4 -H H; _.; H; 2 ON ON Tt 00 0 CN 00 m \u00E2\u0080\u0094H -H -H -H CN CN -H -H -H d d d d O d d d d d d ON CO NO r- NO NO 00 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n 00 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 ft 0 Tt CO CN CN CN Tt CN CN CO CN m CN 00 CN 00 CN 00 CN d d O d d d d d d d d 0 co 0 CO SO CN CN 00 CN CN Tt CN ON CN 0 CN ON \u00E2\u0080\u0094H CN CO Tt m NO 00 ON O -CD CJ o HU. \"2 '0 CO CS o a PH PH 2 E-H r^r^ooooooONOsoooNOOOs O O O O O O O O O O O d d d d d d d d d d d O N - H C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 O O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094ICNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 Poo O O O O O O C ? H O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094I\u00E2\u0080\u0094l-H\u00E2\u0080\u0094I \u00E2\u0080\u0094I \u00E2\u0080\u0094I d d d d d d d d d d d c N T t i n i n T t i n m i n T t c N C N CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN O O N O O C N O N O O O N O N O O O _ 0 _ _ H 0 0 0 0 0 0 R T O N O C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I C N O O N O O O O O - H C N C N C N C N C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i C N 0 00 0 O NO O O 00 O 0 00 O ON O ON O 00 O d d d d d d d d d d d 00 ON CN ON O CN O CN 00 00 ON 0 CN ON 0 1 0 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d 1 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d 1 d 1 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 d d 1 NO O r~ O 00 0 00 0 ON O ON O 0 0 00 0 0 00 O d d d d d d d d d d d ON 0 CN CN CN CN CN 0 CN CN 0 CN ON ON ON 0 d d O O O O d 1 d 1 O 1 O 1 - CN CO Tt in NO 00 ON O 149 o O T 3 B c3 I 5 ft 5 j | l< 0 CN Tf r-- CO Tf Os n in in CO Os vO CO CO CO co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CN VO as vo CN Tt CN CN CN as co Tt CN CN CN CO Os CN CO Tt CO O Tt O CO CO as CO Tt CO Tt Tt as CO Tt 00 r-- Ov CN 00 CN VO CN O CN as CN O CN VO CN Tt CN >n CN VO CN CN CO CN CN CO as CN CN VO CN vo CO VO CN Os Os Tt as O CN 00 O CN CN CO CN CN CO CN CN CN CO CO CN CN 00 CO in Os VO m r- Os >/-) in Tt in I/O >/0 in in m 1/0 10 Os< OS, OS, IT) ^ H CN CN \u00E2\u0080\u0094H CN co Tt co co C N so m \u00E2\u0080\u0094'O \u00E2\u0080\u0094/-> OO lO VO SO Os VO Os VD O m m VO VO r--CNTt\u00E2\u0080\u0094'Tt\u00E2\u0080\u0094 l -HVDTtr -OSTt CNCNCNCNCNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCN\u00E2\u0080\u00941\u00E2\u0080\u00941 o o c o o o o m o s T f c o i n o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 m s o r ^ o o o o t ^ o o o s o o o o o o 00 O CN 00 CN CN CO CN CO Tf CO SO CO CN co 10 co co Tf co Os Tt Tf in SO SO Tf r-00 SO Tt O Tf Tf VD VO CN CN SO O CN 00 r-CN CN CN Os CN CN CN 00 00 SO Tt SO >/-> CO I/O CO OO 00 00 vO OS CN CO CO CN 0 00 OS Os CN CN CN CN CN CO CO CO CN CN CN O CO CO 00 00 CN 00 Tt O CN CN VO in 10 m >n SO SO r-CN CO Tf in SO 00 OS 0 -S O o Tf N ca c \u00C2\u00A7 8 a -a 'o w co . PQ H ft ft T f c o o s t ^ o o o o i n i n r ^ r ^ s o C N C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I S S 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - S - 2 -- H i n - H O s O s r ^ r ~ m i n v o c o in Tf Tf co co co co co co co co o o d o d o o d o d d Tft^TfTfVDCOOgCOCOVO d d d d d d o o o o o in-Hvor-~cNr^>ncOTtrOTt \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 n T t c o c O T f r o c o c o c o c o c o m < n o o r ^ o o o s c N c o s o o r ~ COCOCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCOCN O O O O O O O O O O O , v D v o - H v o i n r - c N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c o v o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 V 0 > n > n T t T t T f T f T f T f T f T f O O O O O O O O O O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' O s o o c N o o O - H O O I ^ r ^ \u00E2\u0080\u00941 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O - H O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I - H O O O 0 0 o o o o o o o o o v o c o o s c N C N r ^ o s o o o s o r ^ COCOCNCOCOCNCNCNCN CO ' CN O O O O O O O O O O O O s c o s o s o s o o o i n T t r ^ r o O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I C N - H - H - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O O O O O O O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l O r ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i o o s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i r ~ > n i n c o i n m T t T f T f c O T f c o c o c o c o O O O O O O O O O O O c|-H C N co Tt m so r- C O O S 2 - H Os O c O T t T t i n > n m > n > n > n i n i n \u00E2\u0080\u0094iO\u00E2\u0080\u0094i-HCNCNCNcOCNrOCO CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN T t i n C O i n C O C O T f T f T t C O T f O O r o c N c o c N c O T f c O T t T f CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN OH T f T t c o T f T f m i n T t i n c o i n 0 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N c o c o c O T t c O T f i n > n CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN C N T t T t T f T f T f T f T f T f T t T f O O S O O O O O - H - H O - H CN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN c o T f i n i n s o r ^ v o ^ o s o v o s o CNO\u00E2\u0080\u0094i - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 iCNCNCOCNCNCO CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN C N c O T f i n v D r ^ o o o s ~ _ 4 150 o m CN CN O O O O O o o o o o o 2 2 2 in in o o '\"8 ca c IP m oo so SO so SO r~ SO OO SO CN o ro O in o o SO O in o oo o o so o OO o o Os c3 C O 03 v-_u CU u o C3 ca < CN CN PQ JZ 3 ca H o o r ^ s o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O O O r ~ O o o r ^ m r ~ r ^ s o r ^ o s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' O O O O O O O O oo oo oo oo in oo oo co O CN o o o o o o so Tt CO - CN Tt CO O CN CN CN CN OO CO in Tt CO _H CO CO Tt so Tt O o O o o o o O O O O ca *C H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N c o T t i n s o r ^ o o o s ^ ; ^ < Tt CN PQ _u 3 ca H o O c o i n c O T t T t i n s o s o o s s o r ^ TtcOCNO\u00E2\u0080\u0094'Os\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCOCNCN sososososoinsososososo OH o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' O T t \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c o c o r ^ ^ o s o o o o s o r ^ o s o c o s o co.SS CN i n i n i n i n s o i n s o s o s o H J s o sococo\u00E2\u0080\u0094'Osoosin 2 oo so C\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CO t\u00E2\u0080\u0094 SO CN Tt t\u00E2\u0080\u0094 so so so so r\u00E2\u0080\u0094 PH 2 Tt 00 CO in r- in Tt SO SO in in SO in m Tt m Tt in m \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n m in Tt in SO in Tt in so in o SO CN CO CO SO Tt Tt so oo CO so in so o SO CN SO OS in o SO CN SO CO so CO so so cNcOTtinsor~ o o o s i 5 _ H Os ca c _o '-w ca lH \u00E2\u0080\u0094 CU CJ CJ ca t~ _ca 3 < CN PQ _cu X> ca H o '\u00E2\u0080\u00A28 03 P PH TtOsooor^ r^r^sor^oooo co\u00E2\u0080\u0094 iTtmTtr~-r^r-~ooosoo SO\u00E2\u0080\u0094I'CNTt\u00E2\u0080\u0094'COOO\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNOOTf CNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CN oor^cNTtOoocor^r-Ttoo sosor^r--r^r-~r^r^r-r~r^ CO0SOCNO00CN00 00CNO CN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CN\u00E2\u0080\u0094'\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNCN inOTtsOTtOSCOOOsCNr^ r^f^ c ^ r ~ c ^ r^oooor~oor^ cNcoinsoint~-t^oocNsoTt r^OsOOCNcocoTtinf^ T t sosor~r~r--r-~(-~r~-r~-r-r^ ft \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c o r ^ i n i n T t T t c N s o o o r ^ C O C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 os oo os r\u00E2\u0080\u0094 r~r\u00E2\u0080\u0094 O O O O C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C2\u00AB r^r^c^t^r^r^oot-^oooooo \u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNrOTtinsot^ooo\~_^ Os I 1 < CO CN PQ ti x> ca H o PH ca 'C H CN Tt SO Tt oo Tt m Tt Tt Tt Tt CN m OS Tt SO Tt SO Tt Tt CN CN o CN - - Os o CN Tt CN Os O co CN Tt O CN CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094t Tt r> r~ co co co co CNln-T.OOsOOOTt\u00E2\u0080\u0094.CNnn\u00E2\u0080\u0094' CO CO SO 00 Os Tt O O in SO r> r> SO SO SO oo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n CO CN Tt 00 CO CN Os _, Tt i co i co i CN CN CN 1 ro ro CN r ro ro Os SO O in Tt 00 oo 00 Os oo CN CN CO CO CO Tt ro Tt ro ro ro OS Tt Os Os osro\u00E2\u0080\u0094> r~ CN r-~ CN m Tf O O O S O s O s O s O s O s O s O s in SO OO 00 m Tt SO Tt Tt Tt ro CO ro Tt Tt Tt ro ro ro ro ro O in in r~ Os Tt CN ro ro i ro i CN CN i i CN i i 1 CN i CN ro Tt m SO oo Os O -Os > sol NO CN CQ 3 ca H 3^ O CN CN - O CN CN - CN o O _ T-H CN CN CN CN CN co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO '\u00E2\u0080\u00A28 so Os Os Os Os Os Os CN ro CN _ O O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094' O \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ft \u00E2\u0080\u0094I CO CN IT) -~ m co in in -~ ~-, r o r o r o c o ^ c o r o r o r o ^ ^ so r~ -O cu CU o CN - o CN CO CO CO Tt Tt Tt VD CO Os Os CO CO oo oo oo OS OS CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN ft ca H CO CN CN O - CO o - CN CO CN CN SO _H OS Os OS o H CN o O -H CO CO CN CN CN CO CO CO CO CO CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094'CNcoTfir>sor^ooos;2Z- i 3 -a ca n >n SO oo r- r- oo oo oo oo oo oo oo CN co Tt \u00E2\u0080\u00A2n SO .r- oo OS o o =5 UH '5 _o > SI < in CN CH _a> x> ca H OH oo oo oo oo d d d d d d d d d d d co CN CN CO Tt Tt >n sq sq sq sq sq ro ro ro CO CO CO CO ro ro ro co ro SO SO in in so so SO in Tt SO Tt d d d d d d d d d d d OS - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 H r o i n T t i n i n i - ~ s q T t r - ; c o ' c o c o c o c o c o c o r o r o r o c o r o c N c o c N O s O s c o O O s O - H ( N O c O T t T t i n o q s D o q r - ^ r - - ; co r o r o c o c o r o r o r o c o c o c o in in oo 00 00 00 Os oo Os d d d d d d d d d d d \u00E2\u0080\u0094. CN CO CN CO Tt in Tt in in in CO CO CO CO CO CO ro ro ro ro CO Os SO SO so SO so so m so OH d d d d d d d d d d d in Tt CO Tt Tt in SO sq in in CO CO CO CO CO co ro ro ro ro CO Trial - CN ro Tt in SO oo Os O 3^ O u o OH p CN oo in CO in Os Tt sq CO CO CO CO CO co co CO CO CO ro sq ro 00 Tt CO so in sq sq Tt Tt ~* CN CN CN CO CO co CO ro CN Tt Os SO Tt in sq Os r~ CN CN CN CN co CN CN CO CN CN CN OO Tt sq oo so -H p oo O p Tt d d CN CN CN co Tt Tt ro ro p ro CN CN t-~ Tt CN >n in in in Tt Tt in Tt Tt Tt Tt sq in CO Tt r~ CN Os so ro in SO -* CN co CN co co ro Tt Tt Tt 00 u T3 CT _U T3 00 B c u ca CL) -a ca < u X OH CN CQ _u x> *2 ca 'C H CN co SO Tt Os CN 00 Os SO r- Os CN co Tt ro ro Tt in Tt Tt Tt Tt p Tt SO CN in SO o SO Tt \u00E2\u0080\u0094H CO ~' CN CN CN CN Tt co CO CO CO co CN Tt ro ro sq m co co in CN CN CN CN CN CO CN CN CO CN CN Tt SO O SO so CN Os Os CN SO CN 1 1 ' 1 CN co CN CN CO CN CN CO Tt in SO oo Os O -152 o a o o o O \u00E2\u0080\u0094i '\u00E2\u0080\u00A28 ca ft T3 u CD l< ft vo T t Tt - cj CM >o s; co co r-\u00C2\u00BB vo ro m oo r~ vo ui in H r-~ i\u00E2\u0080\u0094 t\u00E2\u0080\u0094-T t - t ^ v o o o u o T t T t - o o o o r ^ o v t ^ - H - H r o - n r o O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i r o r a r o v o r ^ t ~ r ^ r ^ r - - r ^ r ^ t ^ r ^ r ^ c o o o o v O i i o ^ O v O v e o Tt ro CN co Os r- r- r- r~ vo O H M ro Tt tN o CM - i ro ro -1 Tt - i ro CN w w w W 00 Tt r~ i/o r~ r~ ro r~ vo r-oo r~ vo ro r\u00C2\u00BB m VO r--H tN ro Tt >/o VO oo Ov o Ov c o \"3 (3 'Sj ca o PH PH r - - 0 0 v O v O r ~ h t ~ - v o n v o v O h O \ h i n ^ t v o v o \u00C2\u00BB r ~ i n r -t ^ r ^ T t o o v o v o v o v o v o v o v o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I t ^ O V T t T t t ^ T t V O V O T t C O o o t ^ t ^ r ^ r ^ t ^ r ^ r - t ^ r ^ r ^ o o t ^ c o c o i o v o o O T t > n v o r ^ OOOOOt^OOOOsOOOOSOOs r ^ o o r ^ r ^ r ^ o o r ^ r ^ r ^ r ^ r ^ T t ^ v o i o i r i i o o o o o c O T t u o _ - T t v o i o i o c o > r ) T t ov r-r ^ r ^ r ^ v o o v o o v o v o v o v o v o VO t\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tt CN CN OO r~ OO CO oo \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 c N c O T t i o v o r ^ o o o v i J Z H o 3 _CD \"ca ft 3 CD l< r- vo VO vo , V ^ ^ /\u00E2\u0080\u0094V oT oT CO 0\ w o VO VO r-VO Ov VD oo VO 00 VO o o t~~ VO oo 8 *\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tt CO 1/1 VO VO VO co O i/-> uo VO vo o 0? oo 0? VO VO VO VO Tt VO ro vo Tt VO \u00E2\u0080\u0094H VO / s OO oo I/O l/\"> oo Tt o CO o oo vo VO Tt VO Tt VO OV VO Tt VO i/o VO vO Tt VO VO co vO vo H CN O o OO o \u00E2\u0080\u0094H ' ' s \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 OO OV VO CN CO VO vo VO VO r-oo\" Os* -\u00E2\u0080\u0094- '\u00E2\u0080\u0094' ^\u00E2\u0080\u0094-Ov o ro VO ro ro o CO T? TF \u00E2\u0080\u0094H VD VO O CN VO oo Os CN CN o CN vo vo r-ca f-| \u00E2\u0080\u0094icNrOTt>T)vor-~ooov2^ Ov S1 O PH PH vovovooooor-~oooooovor^ c N O O O s O s O O O O O s o o t ^ I ^ r ^ v o v o i ^ t ^ r ^ r ^ v o v o v o i / i v o v o v o v o c o n o o i n v o T t r O T t c N i r i c o c o c O T t c N O V l i f | - * 0 \ v 0 r - v 0 h v 0 m v 0 o o o O c O O O O C N O v O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i vot~-t~-r--vot~-r--vor~r-~t^ in vo \o 0? o s in CO r-CN O CN OS VO o o t-Os VO Os VO oo VO in\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094* Tf oo (II) oo \u00E2\u0080\u0094H Ov VO IT) VO m VO Tt VO co VO Os VO oo VO Os VO 00 VO SO SO >n VD -H CN co Tt i/o vo r~ OO Os 2 153 u \"a IP ft \u00E2\u0080\u00A2o 3 \"B. 6 C3 < CH tf co oa x> a H ft o o o in o vt O in O \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf O in o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf o in o o d d d d d d d d d d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f oo O o O o so o SO o SO o SO o SO o d d d d d d d d d d d co OS o m o SO o IT) o SO o CO o in O SO o m O \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf o d d d d d d d d d d d ON tf Os o 00 o O OS o SO o o oo o o o d d d d d d d d d d d Os o oo o SO o SO o >/-> o in o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2tf o SO o O in o so o d d d d d d d d d d d \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f Os o o oo o 00 o SO o o SO o o in O d d d d d d d d d d d Co o CO o CO o tf^ o co o tf\" o CO o CN O T? o CO O TP o d d d d d d d d d d d o o in O SO o IT) o m O m o tf o m o m o m o d d d d d d d d d d d OO o o SO o m o V) O tf o m o tf o CO o CO o m o d d d d d d d d d d d CN o Os o o 00 O SO o O in o in o SO o SO o d d d d d d d d d d d ddd>cid'cid> - T G ' C ' o s c o o S ' P o o so in - H - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I O O O O O OslnOOSOSOSOcOCNCN \u00E2\u0080\u0094i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i d>ddid>d>cid>di
di o s s o i n i n i n s o i n s o i n t f s o O O O O O O O O O O O d d d o o o o d d o d \u00E2\u0080\u0094lOO-tfCNCNCN\u00E2\u0080\u0094iCNOOsOs C M - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . O O d>c>didid>cDcicidcid' \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i c N i n o s \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l O r ^ c o c o r ^ s o C O C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I C N C N - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i d d o o d d o o o o o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i t ^ o o o s o o o o i n t f - t f r ^ t f C O C N \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 t f c o m c o m t f - t f c o - t f c o - t f O O O O O O O O O O O S S S S S S 8 S S S S r ^ r ^ i n c o r o c N - H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I - H O O d>did M A CD CJ S u FEMALE -633 (31) -633 (31) -633 (32) -634 (31) -633 (32) M V VELOCITY -633 (32) -633 (31) H a M A L A MALE -663 (29) -663 (30) L V -663 (29) -663 (29) -663 (29) M V VELOCITY -663 (29) -663 (29) TABLE C .3 MANUBRIUM-C7 MIDPOINT, X (MM) FEMALE MALE H a 16(14) 15(14) H a 33(14) 33(14) M A 16(16) 16(15) 17(15) M A 33(14) 33(14) 34(14) L A 15(15) 16(14) L A 33(14) 33(14) M V VELOCITY H v U M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C.4 MANUBRIUM-C7 MIDPOINT, Z (MM) FEMALE CO JJ> M A CD o 2 u -547 (28) -547 (28) -547 (28) -547 (28) -547 (28) -547 (28) -546 (28) MALE -573 (23) -573 (24) -573 (23) -573 (24) -573 (24) -573 (23) -573 (23) L V M V H v VELOCITY U M V H v VELOCITY TABLE C .5 INITIAL HEAD ANGLE (DEG) FEMALE MALE C O H A 7.7 (3.5) 7.7 (3.2) H A 10.5 (5.7) 10.7 (5.8) ;ELERA M A 7.7 (3.3) 7.4 (2.9) 7.5 (3.2) M A 10.6 (5.0) 11.0 (5.5) 10.6 (5.1) \u00C2\u00BB-\u00C2\u00BB O < 7.8 (3.1) 7.9 (3.5) L a 10.9 (5.8) 10.8 (5.4) U M V VELOCITY H V L v M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C .6 INITIAL TORSO ANGLE (DEG) FEMALE 5 H a g a 2 AJ M A cu o -15.5(3.9) -15.4(3.9) -15.4 (3.9) -15.6 (4.0) -15.8 (4.0) -15.4(3.8) -15.6(4.0) Mv VELOCITY Hv H a M A L\u00E2\u0080\u009E MALE -16.8(4.7) -16.7(4.6) -16.8 (4.2) -16.6 (4.4) -16.7 (4.2) -16.5(4.4) -16.7(4.3) L v M V VELOCITY Hv TABLE C . 7 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, X1 (G) FEMALE C H A O A 2 A) M A CD O 3 u 0.70(0.14) 1.02(0.23) 0.44 (0.08) 0.72 (0.14) 0.90 (0.14) 0.42(0.08) 0.61(0.10) M V VELOCITY H v H a M A L a MALE 0.86(0.18) 1.16(0.25) 0.47 (0.11) 0.85 (0.16) 1.02 (0.15) 0.46(0.10) 0.65(0.09) M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C .8 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, Z1 (G) FEMALE .2 H a 2 AJ M A O -0.80(0.24) -1.12(0.39) -0.43(0.07) -0.69(0.16) -0.90(0.23) -0.38 (0.06) -0.47 (0.09) M A MALE -0.78 (0.14) -0.98 (0.22) -0.43(0.08) -0.68(0.12) -0.82(0.18) -0.38(0.06) -0.49(0.10) Lv M V H V VELOCITY L v M V ' H V VELOCITY TABLE C .9 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, Z2 (G) FEMALE 2 \u00C2\u00A9 M A CD O 1.49 (0.45) 2.22 (0.68) 0.72 (0.26) 1.35 (0.44) 1.87 (0.56) 0 .62(0.21) 0.76(0.21) M V VELOCITY H v H a L a MALE 1.63 (0.43) 2.29 (0.47) 0.76 (0.25) 1.40 (0.36) 1.74 (0.34) 0.68 (0.23) 0.82 (0.20) M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E TABLE C . 1 0 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, X2 (G) FEMALE 5 H a . 2 A> M A CD CJ S U 1.25 (0.39) 2.01 (0.50) 0.59(0.16) 1.21 (0.36) 1.61 (0.37) 0.55(0.14) 0.76(0.18) U M V VELOCITY Hv H a M A L a MALE 1.04(0.12) 1.62(0.18) 0.52(0.09) 0.98(0.12) 1.34(0.14) 0.47 (0.08) 0.64 (0.07) L v M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E TABLE C.11 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, Z3 (G) FEMALE .1 H a 2 A> M A CD CJ 3 L a -0.29(0.08) -0.35(0.11) H a -0.14(0.04) -0.22(0.07) -0.23(0.07) M A -0.08(0.03) -0.10(0.04) L a M V VELOCITY Hv MALE -0.28(0.10) -0.33(0.12) -0.14(0.05) -0.21 (0.09) -0.24(0.08) -0.10(0.04) -0.13(0.04) M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 1 2 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, Z4 (G) FEMALE I 5 Ha 2 a) Ma CD O 3 La 0.42(0.14) 0.64(0.22) 0.21 (0.08) 0.41(0.13) 0.52(0.16) 0.18(0.06) 0.24(0.07) M V VELOCITY Hv H a M A L a MALE 0.43(0.10) 0.56(0.13) 0.20 (0.04) 0.38 (0.09) 0.44 (0.11) 0.17(0.04) 0.22(0.06) L v M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E TABLE C . 1 3 TORSO ACCELERATION, AXZ (G) FEMALE MALE C H A O A 1.44 (0.23) 1.83 (0.18) H A 1.15(0.17) 1.50 (0.19) 2 A> M A CD 0.71 (0.14) 1.19 (0.14) 1.59 (0.15) M A 0.58 (0.10) 1.01 (0.13) 1.38 (0.18) O 0.56 (0.08) 0.86 (0.07) L A 0.49 (0.08) 0.77 (0.08) U M V VELOCITY H V U M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C .14 RETRACTION RX (MM) FEMALE MALE .1 H a -27 (5) -37 (6) H A -25 (3) -35 (4) si A) M A CD -15(3) -26 (5) -37 (7) M A -13(3) -24 (3) -35 (2) O * L A -14(3) -24 (6) L A -12(2) -24 (3) U M V VELOCITY H V L V M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C .15 ANGULAR ACCELERATION, A1 (RAD/S2) FEMALE MALE .2 H A 88 (23) 142(36) H A 77(12) 119(22) (0 JI> M A CD 42 (7) 77(18) 110(29) M A 3 9 (5) 68(12) 89(16) O * L A 37 (8) 45 (10) L A 35 (5) 42 (7) U M V VELOCITY H V U M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C . 1 6 ANGULAR ACCELERATION, A2 (RAD/S2) FEMALE \u00C2\u00A3 H A .2 2 \u00C2\u00A9 M A CD O 3 u -117(43) -192(88) -54(23) -102(41) -143(51) -45(19) -49(15) H A M A L A MALE -50(19) -43(17) -111(40) -159(48) -92(32) -107(30) -46(16) L V M V H V VELOCITY U M V H V VELOCITY TABLE C . 1 7 ANGULAR VELOCITY W (RAD/S) FEMALE MALE H A 4.0 (0.8) 6.3(1.0) H A 3.9 (0.6) 5.7 (1.0) M A 1.9 (0.4) 3.7 (0.7) 5.5(1.0) M A 1.9 (0.3) 3.5 (0.6) 4.9 (0.7) 1.7 (0.4) 2.6 (0.7) L a 1.8 (0.3) 2.5 (0.5) U M V VELOCITY H V U M V VELOCITY H V T A B L E D 8 HEAD ANGLE Q (DEG) FEMALE C O H A 16.4 (3.4) 25.3 (3.9) :ELERA M A 7.9 (2.1) 15.4 (3.0) 24.7 (4.3) \u00C2\u00BB-\u00C2\u00BB o < La 7.4(1.9) 14.8 (4.1) U M V VELOCITY H V MALE Ha 16.3 (3.0) 24.3 (4.6) M A 8.6(1.9) 15.0 (3.2) 23.6 (4.3) L a 8.2 (2.1) 14.5(2.8) U M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 1 9 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, X1 (MS) FEMALE MALE H A 177(18) 187(18) H A 172(16) 179(15) M A 170(20) 180(17) 201 (20) M A 170(14) 176(16) 194 (20) L a 174(17) 201 (31) L a 181 (23) 203 (28) U M V VELOCITY H V U M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C . 2 0 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, Z1 (MS) FEMALE c Ha o a JI5 M A CD O S u 89(11) 94 (11 ) 90(16) 95(14) 104(10) 97(16) 105(15) MALE H A M A 85(14) 9 3 (8) 90(16) 100(11) 95 (11 ) 102(7) 106 (7) Lv M V H V VELOCITY U M V H V VELOCITY TABLE C.21 FOREHEAD ACCELERATION, Z2 (MS) FEMALE MALE H a 160(12) 168(12) H a 159 (7) 163 (9) M A 157(16) 166(11) 180(14) M A 159(11) 164 (8) 175(12) 169 (27) 194 (24) L a 169(12) 195(18) U M V VELOCITY H v M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 2 2 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, X2 (MS) FEMALE MALE H a 99 (7) 104(8) H a 104(8) 114(8) M A 93(14) 107 (9) 116(11) M A 92 (9) 112 (8) 125 (7) L a 109 (9) 128(16) L a 109 (9) 134(14) U M\u00E2\u0080\u009E VELOCITY H v U M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 2 3 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, Z3 (MS) o f5 CD o o < cu o o FEMALE MALE H a 5 3 (3) 58 (4) H a 57(16) 66(17) M A 51 (4) 63 (5) 64 (6) M A 54(18) 65 (17 ) 72(13) La 67 (6) 82(14) L a 68(17) 90 (10 ) U M V H v U M V H v VELOCITY VELOCITY >LE C . 2 4 MASTOID PROCESS ACCELERATION, Z4 (MS) FEMALE MALE H a 129(12) 128(12) H a 147(14) 147(13) M A 131 (13) 132(13) 136(14) M A 151 (13) 153(13) 154(16) L a 139(11) 150(14) La 157(12) 169(18) U M V H v VELOCITY U M V H v VELOCITY TABLE C . 2 5 TORSO ACCELERATION, AXZ (MS) FEMALE MALE H a 60 (3) 71 (10) H a 61 (6) 7 7 (8) M A 59 (5) 74 (7) 97 (6) M A 54 (3) 78 (7) 99 (7) L a 79 (7) 111 (8) L a 80 (4) 113(7) U M V VELOCITY H v M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 2 6 RETRACTION RX (MS) o CO CD o O FEMALE MALE H a 183 (34) 187 (28) H a 200 (37) 205 (29) M A 177 (23) 186 (25) 204 (34) M A 186 (28) 198 (26) 221 (34) L a 186 (20) 213(29) L a 194 (25) 239(59) U M V H v U M V H v VELOCITY VELOCITY TABLE C . 2 7 ANGULAR ACCELERATION, A1 (MS) FEMALE ACCELERATION H a M A La 93 (7) 101 (7) 103 (7) 108 (7) 115(15) 111 (8) 121 (12) U M V VELOCITY H v H a MALE 103 (5) 111 (6) M A 90 (7) 107 (6) 118(7) L a 100 (5) 111 (9) U M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C . 2 8 ANGULAR ACCELERATION, A2 (MS) FEMALE MALE H a 162(11) 173 (21) H a 156 (7) 163 (9) M A 157(13) 167(15) 184(18) M A 157(12) 164 (9) 174(13) La 171 (26) 199 (27) L a 171 (19) 200 (23) U M V VELOCITY H v U M V VELOCITY H v TABLE C .29 ANGULAR VELOCITY W (MS) FEMALE c O Ha 131 (11) 137(10) ACCELERA M A 123(12) 130 (13) 136(10) 155(18) 149(11) U M V VELOCITY Hv MALE Ha 130 (7) 138 (8) Ma 123 (8) 134 (8) 147(10) L a 132 (9) 152(16) Lv Mv VELOCITY Hv TABLE C . 3 0 HEAD ANGLE Q (MS) FEMALE MALE .2 H a 207 (42) 210(31) Ha 199 (29) 214(29) a> M A CD 197 (48) 215(42) 230 (34) M A 200 (38) 209 (33) 232 (32) O * La 205 (39) 254 (45) La 211 (38) 251 (46) U M V VELOCITY Hv U M V VELOCITY Hv TABLE C .31 TORSO ACCELERATION ONSET (MS) FEMALE MALE c H A .2 18.3(2.6) 18.2 (2.0) Ha 17.0(1.5) 17.2(1.7) ai M A CD 19.8 (2.8) 20.0 (2.2) 19.8 (2.3) M A 19.5(1.6) 19.0(1.2) 19.7(1.8) O * La 21.8 (2.8) 21.8 (2.4) La 21.1 (1.7) 22.0 (1.4) Lv M V VELOCITY Hv Lv M V VELOCITY Hv TABLE C.32 HEAD ACCELERATION ONSET (MS) FEMALE MALE S Ha .2 26.5 (3.9) 27.4 (4.7) H a 26.0 (3.3) 26.2 (3.9) 2 \u00C2\u00A9 M A \u00C2\u00A9 29.7 (4.4) 29.7 (4.7) 30.4 (5.2) M A 29.2 (3.7) 28.8 (3.9) 29.2 (3.6) o * La 31.9 (5.3) 32.1 (5.3) L a 32.5 (4.7) 32.2 (3.6) U M V H V VELOCITY U M V H V VELOCITY TABLE C . 3 3 ORBICULARIS OCULI ONSET (MS) FEMALE MALE H A 6 3 (6) 67 (6) H A 63 (6) 69 (9) M A 65 (8) 68 (7) 72(13) M A 64 (8) 66 (7) 72 (12 ) L A 69 (7) 71 (12) L A 67 (9) 65 (7) U M V VELOCITY H V L V M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C . 3 4 MASSETER ONSET (MS) FEMALE ACCELERATION H A M A L A 66 (5) 72 (4) 66 (7) 73 (5) 74 (8) 73 (8) 80 (11 ) L V M V VELOCITY H V H A MALE 69 (6) 78 (8) M A 69 (6) 72 (5) 79 (9) L A 72 (5) 77 (9) L V M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C .35 STERNOCLEIDOMASTOID ONSET (MS) FEMALE MALE H A 65 (4) 68 (6) H A 72 (5) 73 (5) M A 66 (4) 70 (4 ) 73 (6) M A 69 (4) 73 (4) 76 (5 ) La 70 (5) 7 3 (7) L a 73 (3) 76 (3) U M V VELOCITY H V U M V VELOCITY H V TABLE C .36 CERVICAL PARASPINAL ONSET (MS) FEMALE I H MALE c g 2 J5 M A CD O S La 74(4) 75 (3) 70 (6) 76 (3) 75 (3) 76 (4) 7 5 ( 1 1 ) H A M A 7 7 (3) 78 (2) 73 (5) 77 (2) 78 (3) 77 (4) 80 (7) L_v M V H V VELOCITY U M V H V VELOCITY TABLE C . 3 7 S C M R M S AMPLITUDE FEMALE C H A .2 *\u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\u00E2\u0080\u0094' 2 O M A 0) o S u 0.09(0.04) 0.13(0.05) 0.06(0.05) 0.09(0.05) 0.10(0.05) 0.05 (0.03) 0.06 (0.03) M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E H A M A U MALE 0.13(0.08) 0.16(0.10) 0.06(0.07) 0.13(0.08) 0.12(0.05) 0.06 (0.07) 0.05 (0.03) M V VELOCITY TABLE C .38 P A R A R M S AMPLITUDE FEMALE C H A .2 2 o> M a o> o 0.05 (0.04) 0.08 (0.05) 0.03 (0.03) 0.06 (0.04) 0.06 (0.05) 0.03 (0.02) 0.04 (0.03) M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E M A L A MALE 0.07 (0.04) 0.08 (0.05) 0.04 (0.03) 0.07 (0.03) 0.07 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 0.04 (0.02) L V M V VELOCITY H\u00E2\u0080\u009E "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "2001-05"@en . "10.14288/1.0077100"@en . "eng"@en . "Human Kinetics"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "The reflex response of human neck muscles to whiplash-like perturbations"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/12846"@en .