Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine logoLink to Journal of Chiropractic Medicine
. 2005;4(2):53–60. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60114-1

Kinetic analysis of expertise in spinal manipulative therapy using an instrumented manikin

Martin Descarreaux a,*, Claude Dugas b, Jean Raymond a, Martin C Normand a
PMCID: PMC2647034  PMID: 19674647

Abstract

Objective

The goals of this study were to measure the kinetic profile of thrust in different groups of subjects with various levels of expertise and to quantify general coordination while performing thoracic spine manipulation.

Participants

A total of 43 students and chiropractors from the Chiropractic Department of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières participated in this study.

Methods

Participants were asked to complete ten consecutive thoracic spine manipulations on an instrumented manikin. Peak force, preload force, time to peak force, time to peak force variability, peak force variability, rate of force production and unloading time were compared between groups. Hand-body delay obtained by calculating the temporal lag between the onset of unloading and the onset of peak force application was also compared between groups.

Results

No group difference was observed for the peak force, peak force variability and preload force variables. However, group differences were present for variables like time to peak force, time to peak force variability, rate of force production, unloading time and hand-body delay.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates clear differences between groups of subjects with different levels of expertise in thoracic spine manipulation. This study also demonstrates the usefulness of a simple, instrumented manikin to analyze spinal manipulation and identify important parameters related to expertise.

Key Indexing Terms: Manipulation, Spinal; Professional Competence; Task Performance and Analysis; Education

Footnotes

Sources of support: This study was funded by the Fond Institutionnel de Recherche de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research scholarship to author Jean Raymond.

References

  • 1.Herzog W. Clinical biomechanics of spinal manipulation. In: Herzog W, editor. The mechanics of spinal manipulation. Churchill Livingstone; New York: 2000. pp. 92–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peterson DH, Bergmann TF. Chiropractic technique principles and procedures. 2nd ed. Mosby; St. Louis: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. 3rd ed. Human Kinetics; Champaign, IL: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Young TJ, Hayek R, Philipson SA. A cervical manikin procedure for chiropractic skills development. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:241–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Haldeman S. Neurological effects of the adjustment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23:112–114. doi: 10.1016/s0161-4754(00)90078-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Evans DW. Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, lowamplitude thrust manipulation: previous theories. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:251–262. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.123166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Good C. Aspects of learning issues relevant to the chiropractic adjustment. J Chiropr Educ. 1993;7:19–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Good C. Task manipulation in psychomotor skills practice sessions: a literature review. J Chiropr Educ. 1994;8:19–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Scaringe JG, Chen D, Ross D. The effects of augmented sensory feedback precision on the acquisition and retention of a simulated chiropractic task. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:34–41. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.120419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cohen E, Triano JJ, McGregor M, Papakyriakou M. Biomechanical performance of spinal manipulation therapy by newly trained vs. practicing providers: does experience transfer to unfamiliar procedures? J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18:347–352. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Triano JJ, Rogers CM, Combs S, Potts D, Sorrels K. Developing skilled performance of lumbar spine manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:353–361. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.126132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Enebo BA. Developing skilled performance of lumbar spine manipulation (letter) J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26:396. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(03)00064-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Coloma J, Faubion J. Developing skilled performance of lumbar spine manipulation (letter) J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26:397. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(03)00062-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Newell KM, Carlton LG, Hancock PA. Kinetic analysis of response variability. Psychol Bull. 1984;96:133–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Herzog W, Conway PJ, Kawchuk GN, Zhang Y, Hasler EM. Forces exerted during spinal manipulative therapy. Spine. 1993;18:1206–1212. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199307000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Forand D, Drover J, Suleman Z, Symons B, Herzog W. The forces applied by female and male chiropractors during thoracic spinal manipulation. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004;27:49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2003.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gottlieb GL, Corcos DM, Argawal GC. Organizing principles for singlejoint movements. I. A speed-insensitive strategy. J Neurophysiol. 1989;62:342–357. doi: 10.1152/jn.1989.62.2.342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kempf T, Corcos DM, Flament D. Time course and temporal order of changes in movement kinematics during motor learning: effect of joint and instruction. Exp Brain Res. 2001;136:295–302. doi: 10.1007/s002210000584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Corcos DM, Gottlieb GL, Agarwal GC. Organizing principles for singlejoint movements. II. A speed-sensitive strategy. J Neurophysiol. 1989;62:358–368. doi: 10.1152/jn.1989.62.2.358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Corcos DM, Jaric S, Agarwal GC, Gottlieb GL. Principles for learning single-joint movements. I. Enhanced performance by practice. Exp Brain Res. 1993;94:499–513. doi: 10.1007/BF00230208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gordon J, Ghez C. Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. II. Pulse height control. Exp Brain Res. 1987;67:241–252. doi: 10.1007/BF00248546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gal J, Herzog W, Kawchuk G, Conway PJ, Zhang YT. Movements of vertebrae during manipulative thrusts to unembalmed human cadavers. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:30–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Collet C. Mouvements et cerveau: neurophysiologie des activités physiques et sportives. DeBoeck Universite; Bruxelles: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kamon E, Gormley J. Muscular activity pattern for skilled performance and during learning of a horizontal bar exercise. Ergonomics. 1968;11:345–347. doi: 10.1080/00140136808930982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McGrain P. Trends in selected kinematic and myoelectric variables associated with learning a novel motor task. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1980;51:509–520. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1980.10608074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ludwig DA. EMG changes during acquisition of a motor skill. Am J Phys Med. 1982;61:229–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McDonald P, van Emmerik R, Newell K. The effects of practice on limb kinematics in a throwing task. J Mot Behav. 1989;21:245–264. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1989.10735480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Chiropractic Medicine are provided here courtesy of National University of Health Sciences

RESOURCES