spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online March 12, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 1053-1063 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.020248
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schilling, N.
Right arrow Articles by Carrier, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Schilling, N.
Right arrow Articles by Carrier, D. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Function of the epaxial muscles during trotting

Nadja Schilling1,* and David R. Carrier2

1 Institute of Systematic Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Erbertstrasse 1, 07743 Jena, Germany
2 Department of Biology, 201 South Biology Building, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Normalized electromyograms (EMGs) for control and manipulation signals as well as the difference between control and manipulation trials of the m. multifidus lumborum and the m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum from all six dogs when they trotted with 12% of their body mass carried in a backpack located over their pelvic girdle. The x-axis shows the ipsilateral hindlimb stance (left) and swing (right). For each dog, the trotting speed was the same during the control and experimental trials. Normalized EMG: the black line represents the median of the averaged EMG when the dogs trotted on the level without added mass (control); the gray line represents the median of the averaged EMG when the dogs carried the added mass. The error bars represent the upper and lower quartile for each sampling window (bin). Note that control and manipulation signals were plotted relative to the maximum amplitude observed in the particular manipulation experiment. Thus, the relative amplitude of the control recordings for a given muscle varies (also in Figs 2, 3, 4). Difference: median as well as the 5th and the 95th quantile of the difference between the control and the manipulation signal on a bin-by-bin basis for all dogs. Negative values indicate that the manipulation signal was decreased relative to the control; positive values indicate that the manipulation signal was increased relative to the control. Control and manipulation signals per bin are significantly different when the error bars do not cross the x-axis. Note that these traces were plotted relative to the maximum difference observed for the given sampling site to optimally present the difference. The difference traces are therefore not directly comparable among muscles or sampling sites.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Normalized EMGs for control and manipulation signals as well as the difference between control and manipulation trials of the m. multifidus lumborum and the m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum from all six dogs when they trotted uphill (14 deg.). For further explanation, see Fig. 1.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Normalized EMGs for control and manipulation signals as well as the difference between control and manipulation trials of the m. multifidus lumborum and the m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum from all six dogs when they trotted downhill (14 deg.). For further explanation, see Fig. 1.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Normalized EMGs for control and manipulation signals as well as the difference between control and manipulation trials of the m. multifidus lumborum and the m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum from all six dogs when they trotted with 2% of their body mass added to their hindfeet (except for T13 in m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum, N=5). For further explanation, see Fig. 1.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2009