Comparative Analyses of the Dominant and Non-Dominant Up-per Limbs during the Abduction and Adduction Motions

  • Haemi JEE Department of Physical Therapy, Namseoul University, Cheonan-si, Korea
  • Jaehyun PARK Department of Information and Communication, Inha University, Incheon, Korea
Keywords: Asymmetry; Dominance; Upper limb; Kinematics; Bilateral motion

Abstract

  Background: Asymmetry in repeated motion may lead to dyskinesia through imbalance in the involved musculoskeletal structures. The dominance sides are also involved greater movement involvement over the non-dominant sides. The upper limbs with multiple joints and largest range of motion are prone for unsynchronized coordination. Natural movement analysis is required for application to everyday activities. Methods: Thirty participants were first recruited from Inha University, Incheon, Korea in 2019. Twenty subjects were assessed for comparisons of asymmetrical motion between the dominant and non-dominant arms during the abduction and adduction lateral raises after excluding ten subjects for shoulder pain and left-handedness. Results: The abduction and adduction motions of the bilateral arms were compared for the angular locations, velocity, and acceleration for every 10 degrees. The angular locations of the dominant side occurred significant earlier in the initial (10°, 20°, 30°) phase and later in the last (10°, 20°) phase of abduction and adduction in comparison to the non-dominant side (P<.05). The angular accelerations of the dominant side were also significantly greater during the initial phase (0°, 10°, 30°) and last phase (0°, 10°, 30°) (P <.05). The angular velocities were significantly greater during the later phase (40, 50, 60°) of abduction (P <.04). Conclusion: Comparative dominant side indicated more controlled movements through the range of motion with greater stability in angular acceleration and deceleration especially during the initial and last phase of abduction and adduction, respectively. Training for control of the specific angular points should be considered during abduction and adduction motions to prevent asymmetry of the bilateral arms.    

References

1. do Rosario JL (2014). Photographic analysis of human posture: a literature review. J Bodyw Mov Ther, 18(1):56-61.
2. Hadzic V, Sattler T, Veselko M et al (2014). Strength asymmetry of the shoulders in elite volleyball players. J Athl Train, 49(3):338-44.
3. Maly T, Zahalka F, Mala L et al (2015). The bilateral strength and power asymmetries in untrained boys. Open Med (Wars), 10(1):224-32.
4. Cutti AG, Veeger HE (2009). Shoulder biomechanics: today's consensus and tomorrow's perspectives. Med Biol Eng Comput, 47(5):463-6.
5. Matsuki K, Matsuki KO, Mu S et al (2011). In vivo 3-dimensional analysis of scapular kinematics: comparison of dominant and nondominant shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 20(4):659-65
6. Rettig O, Krautwurst B, Maier MW et al (2015). Definition of anatomical zero positions for assessing shoulder pose with 3D motion capture during bilateral abduction of the arms. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 16:383.
7. Lang CE, Waddell KJ, Klaesner JW et al (2017). A Method for Quantifying Upper Limb Performance in Daily Life Using Accelerometers. J Vis Exp, 21;(122).
8. Hurd WJ, Morrow MM, Kaufman KR (2013). Tri-axial accelerometer analysis techniques for evaluating functional use of the extremities. J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 23(4):924-9.
9. Yoshizaki K, Hamada J, Tamai K et al (2009). Analysis of the scapulohumeral rhythm and electromyography of the shoulder muscles during elevation and lowering: comparison of dominant and nondominant shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 18(5):756-63.
10. Hosseinimehr SH, Anbarian M, Norasteh AA et al (2015). The comparison of scapular upward rotation and scapulohumeral rhythm between dominant and non-dominant shoulder in male overhead athletes and non-athletes. Man Ther, 20(6):758-62.
11. Noble BJ, Borg GA, Jacobs I et al (1983). A category-ratio perceived exertion scale: relationship to blood and muscle lactates and heart rate. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 15(6):523-8.
12. Andersen LL, Andersen CH, Mortensen OS et al (2010). Muscle activation and perceived loading during rehabilitation exercises: comparison of dumbbells and elastic resistance. Phys Ther, 90(4):538-49.
13. Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N et al (1991). Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res, 4(4):143-9.
14. Oldfield RC (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1):97-113.
15. Veale JF (2014). Edinburgh Handedness Inventory - Short Form: a revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality, 19(2):164-77.
16. Alver BA, Sell K, Deuster PA (2017). NSCA's Essentials of Tactical Strength and Conditioning. Place Human Kinetics.
17. Brzycki M (1988) .A Practical Approach To Strength Training. Place McGraw-Hill.
18. Texas Instruments (2019). Embedded development hardware kits & boards http://www.ti.com/tools-software/sensortag.html
19. Yun X, Bachmann ER (2006). Design, Implementation, and Experimental Results of a Quaternion-Based Kalman Filter for Human Body Motion Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 22:1216-27.
20. Ahn SM, Jee HM, Park J. Extended Kalman Filter Design for Cost Effective Bio-medical Motion Sensor in Proceeding of the 2018 Int Conf Inv Comput Syst App; 2018 Jan 29-30.
21. Barnes CJ, Van Steyn SJ, Fischer RA (2001). The effects of age, sex, and shoulder dominance on range of motion of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 10(3):242-6.
22. Assi A, Bakouny Z, Karam M et al (2016). Three-dimensional kinematics of upper limb anatomical movements in asymptomatic adults: Dominant vs. non-dominant. Hum Mov Sci, 50:10-18.
23. Coley B, Jolles BM, Farron A et al (2008). Estimating dominant upper-limb segments during daily activity. Gait Posture, 27(3):368-75.
24. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002). Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol, 88(5):2408-21.
25. Sachlikidis A, Salter C (2007). A biomechanical comparison of dominant and non-dominant arm throws for speed and accuracy. Sports Biomech, 6(3):334-44.
26. McGrath TM, Waddington G, Scarvell JM et al (2016). The effect of limb dominance on lower limb functional performance--a systematic review. J Sports Sci, 34(4):289-302.
27. Wickham J, Pizzari T, Stansfeld K et al (2010). Quantifying 'normal' shoulder muscle activity during abduction. J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 20(2):212-22.
28. Dayanidhi S, Orlin M, Kozin S et al (2005). Scapular kinematics during humeral elevation in adults and children. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 20(6):600-6.
29. Weir JP (2000). Youth and isokinetic testing In: Brown LE, ed., Isokinetics in human performance. Human Kinetics.
Published
2019-10-04
How to Cite
1.
JEE H, PARK J. Comparative Analyses of the Dominant and Non-Dominant Up-per Limbs during the Abduction and Adduction Motions. Iran J Public Health. 48(10):1768-1776.
Section
Original Article(s)