Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msksp

Original article

Sense of effort is distorted in people with chronic low back pain

Michel W. Coppieters a, b, *, Jesper Andersen c, Håvard Selbæk d, Kjell Herland e, Rahma Ajja f,
Harald Markussen g, h, i, Paul W. Hodges j
a
Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Parklands Drive, QLD 4222, Southport, Australia
b
Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands
c
Physiotherapy and Chiropractic Centre, Mo-i-Rana, Norway
d
Active Clinic, Lillehammer, Norway
e
Klokkerbakken Medical Center, Kongsberg, Norway
f
Public Health and Nutrition Department, College of Natural and Health Sciences, Zayed University, United Arab Emirates
g
Norwegian Handball Federation, Oslo, Norway
h
Department of Health, Olympiatoppen, Oslo, Norway
i
Norwegian Athletics Federation, Oslo, Norway
j
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Proprioceptive deficits in people with low back pain (LBP) have traditionally been attributed to
Spinal pain altered paraspinal muscle spindle afference and its central processing. Studies conducted in the upper limb
Proprioception demonstrated that sense of effort is also an important source of kinaesthetic information. Objectives: To better
Muscle spindle
understand proprioceptive deficits in people with chronic LBP (cLBP), this study aimed to test whether sense of
Rehabilitation
Disability
effort is affected in people with cLBP. Design: Cross-sectional study. Method: Fourteen participants with cLBP
and fourteen healthy participants performed a 120 s force matching task with their trunk extensor muscles at a
low intensity. Results: When visual feedback of the generated force was provided, both groups performed the
task accurately. Removal of visual feedback resulted in an increase in error for both groups (p < 0.0001), but the
increase in error was significantly larger for the cLBP group (p = 0.023). This larger error could be attributed to
undershooting of the target force (p = 0.020). The control group did not consistently undershoot or overshoot the
target force (p = 0.93). Furthermore, the amount of undershooting for the cLBP group increased as the task
progressed (p = 0.016), which was not observed for the control group (p = 0.80). Conclusions: The results of
this study revealed that sense of effort is affected in cLBP. People with cLBP overestimated the trunk extension
force they generated, and the error increased as the trial progressed. With visual feedback however, people with
cLBP were able to compensate and perform the task as accurately as people without cLBP.

1. Introduction effort or heaviness differs from the other senses as it is believed to be

generated within the central nervous system and in its simplest form
Proprioception encompasses different senses, such as detection of does not require input from peripheral receptors (de Morree et al.,
joint position and movement (kinaesthesia), sensation of force and 2012).
heaviness accompanying muscle contractions, and sensations (e.g., Deficits in proprioception are commonly reported in people with low
effort) related to descending motor commands (Proske and Gandevia, back pain (LBP), although a few studies have failed to show deficits
2012). The central nervous system receives input from a wide range of (Laird et al., 2014; Tong et al., 2017). The experimental paradigms that
receptors concerned with monitoring the body’s actions (Proske, 2005). have been used to evaluate proprioception in LBP have nearly all
A common view is that muscle spindles along with contributions from focussed on sense of position or movement. Because afferent signals
skin and joint receptors are responsible for the sense of position and from muscle spindles have been regarded as the main input for kin­
movement, and tendon organs provide the sense of tension. Sense of aesthesia, it has been logical to reason that altered paraspinal muscle

* Corresponding author. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Parklands Drive, QLD 4222, Southport, Australia.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M.W. Coppieters).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102376
Received 6 August 2020; Received in revised form 11 March 2021; Accepted 29 March 2021
Available online 2 April 2021
2468-7812/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.W. Coppieters et al. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

spindle afference and its central processing may be affected in people Table 1
with LBP (Brumagne et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2012). Characteristics (mean (SD)) for the participants with and without low back pain.
It has been argued however, that muscle spindles are not well suited Low back Asymptomatic Statistical
as position sensors (Proske and Allen, 2019). Afferent discharges from pain group group comparison
spindles can result from muscle stretch but may also result from intra­ Sex (female n (%)) 8 (57%) 7 (50%)
fusal muscle fibres contraction. This means that muscle spindles provide Age (years) 25 (7) 24 (6) p = 0.81
a potentially ambiguous signal for position sense (Macefield and Height (cm) 170 (7) 172 (8) p = 0.48
Knellwolf, 2018). As a consequence, the notion that muscle spindles play Weight (kg) 61.4 (11.5) 65.9 (10.7) p = 0.30
BMI (kg/m2) 21.5 (3.4) 22.3 (2.7) p = 0.50
the principal role in kinaesthesia may be overestimated. Similarly, the Baecke Physical Activity
view that proprioceptive deficits in LBP reflect altered paraspinal muscle Questionnaire
spindle afference or its central processing may need reappraisal. - Work (1–5) 2.6 (0.6) 2.3 (0.4) p = 0.15
Positional information also demonstrated to be derived from motor - Sport (1–5) 2.6 (1.4) 2.6 (0.9) p = 0.90
- Leisure (1–5) 2.9 (0.3) 3.0 (0.4) p = 0.26
command and effort associated with movement (Gandevia et al., 2006;
Oswestry LBP Disability Index 27.6 0.3 (0.9%) p < 0.0001
Smith et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2004; Weerakkody et al., 2003). For (0–100) (10.4%)
example, a change in joint position is perceived when an effort is made Roland-Morris Low Back Pain 5.1 (4.2) 0.1 (0.3) p < 0.0001
to move a joint even though the muscles that cross that joint are para­ and Disability
lysed, anaesthesised or undergo muscle vibration (Brooks et al., 2013; Questionnaire (0–24)
Pain intensity (day of testing; 2.6 (1.8) 0.0 (0.1) p < 0.0001
Luu et al., 2011; Monjo et al., 2018). Studies indicate that when VAS 0–10)
movements are produced volitionally, centrally generated signals of Pain intensity (worst last 5.5 (2.0) 0.1 (0.2) p < 0.0001
motor command and sense of effort are a source of kinaesthetic infor­ week; VAS 0–10)
mation (Proske and Allen, 2019). Duration of symptoms (years) 5 years (4)
The ability to actively replicate target positions of the trunk is most Abbreviations; BMI: body mass index; VAS: visual analogue scale.
commonly used to study proprioception in LBP (Tong et al., 2017).
Considering the active nature and the revealed contribution of motor Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans
commands and sense of effort to kinaesthesia, it is impossible to deter­ and was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee.
mine whether the deficits in proprioception demonstrated in these
repositioning tasks could be explained by altered receptor afference and 2.2. Pain and function scales
its central processing as previously suggested (Brumagne et al., 2000).
An alternative hypothesis is that proprioception is altered in cLBP due to Participants completed the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index
altered motor commands or sense of effort that would contribute to and the Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire prior
repositioning errors as the person moves the back to the target position. to the testing session. They rated their current and worst pain level
The aim of this study was to examine whether sense of effort is altered in during the last week on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (ranging from
people with cLBP. We hypothesised that sense of effort is affected in 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain imaginable)). These instruments
cLBP, but because no other studies have investigated this, we are unable have been shown to be adequately valid and reliable for use in this
to reason whether there would be a consistent overestimation or un­ population, and recommended tools for research in LBP (Chiarotto et al.,
derestimation of the generated force, or whether the error would be 2018). Participants also completed the Baecke Physical Activity Ques­
fluctuating (Pranata et al., 2017). revealed that the ability to control tionnaire, which is reliable (Carvalho et al., 2017) and valid (Pols et al.,
lumbar extensor force output is impaired in people with cLBP. However, 1995).
their research focused on the ability to generate isometric muscle force,
and not on sense of effort. The participants in that study had real-time 2.3. Force matching task
visual feedback about their force production throughout the experi­
ment and could rely on visual rather than proprioceptive feedback. Participants were semi-seated in an aluminium frame (Fig. 1A). To
minimise pelvic motion, the pelvis was fixated with supports behind the
2. Materials and methods sacrum and in front of the left and right anterior superior iliac spine.
Participants performed an isometric trunk extension effort against
2.1. Participants resistance provided via a steel cable, to match a varying target force for
120 s. The target force varied pseudo-randomly between 3% and 10% of
Twenty-eight volunteers participated in this study. The participants’ a force estimated to represent the average maximum isometric trunk
characteristics are listed in Table 1. Participants were aged between 18 extension force of healthy individuals using our experimental set-up. To
and 50 years of age, without neurological or respiratory disorders. determine the average maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), a pre­
Fourteen participants had cLBP and 14 volunteers served as control paratory experiment with nine males (mean (SD) age: 25.8 (5.3)) and
participants. Inclusion criteria for the cLBP group were the presence of seven females (age: 23.0 (2.2)) was conducted. The participants were
LBP for at least 6 months, which had limited activities of daily living and positioned in the same semi-seated position in the same experimental
for which some form of treatment, such as medication, medical set-up as the actual experiment. The peak trunk extension force of three
consultation, or physiotherapy, had been sought. In agreement with isometric 3s MVC attempts was determined for each participant (mean
previous motor control studies in cLBP (e.g., Pranata et al., 2017; van (SD) extension force males: 70.3 (12.3) kg; females: 39.5 (18.2) kg).
den Hoorn et al., 2012), people with mild cLBP were recruited (i.e., a Based on the findings of this preparatory experiment, the target force
pain intensity between 0.5 and 4.4 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale was varied between 2.5 kg (3%) and 7.5 kg (10%) for males and between
(Jensen et al., 2003), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain 1.5 kg (3%) and 7.5 kg (10%) for females. We opted for low %MVC to
imaginable)). Exclusion criteria included a history of spinal surgery, avoid possible exacerbation of cLBP, to reflect activity levels still per­
spinal deformities, such as scoliosis, or a moderate or severe pain in­ formed by both people with cLBP and healthy participants, and to
tensity score (more than 4.4 cm on a visual analogue scale (Jensen et al., minimise the impact of possible functional and structural changes in the
2003)). Control participants could not have had a significant episode of trunk extensor muscles (Hodges and Danneels, 2019). Each 120-s trial
LBP in the preceding two years. Written consent was obtained from all started at a force level midway between these two limits, i.e. at 6.5% of
participants prior to the commencement of the study. The study was MVC. Before each trial, the force level of 6.5% of MVC was displayed for
carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical 15s to allow the participants to generate the required starting force.

2
M.W. Coppieters et al. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

a waveform of the generated trunk extension force. Based on the

waveforms, three outcome measures were calculated (see below for
further details): (1) accuracy (error area, mean absolute error and %
MVC), (2) undershooting or overshooting (%MVC), and (3) drift
(trendline slope).
Accuracy: The area between the two waveforms was calculated as a
measure of task accuracy (i.e., error area). A larger error area represents
larger discrepancies between the target force and generated force, and
reflects lower accuracy. In these calculations, absolute differences be­
tween the waveforms were used, i.e., the direction of the error (over­
shooting or undershooting) was not considered. Accuracy was also
expressed as the mean absolute error by dividing the error area by the
trial duration (i.e., the number of data points) and expressed as %MVC.
Undershooting or overshooting: To identify whether the participants
undershot or overshot the waveform of the target force, the mean error
(difference between the target and generated force) was calculated. This
yielded either a positive or negative mean value. The mean error across
the entire trial was expressed in %MVC. Positive values indicate that, on
average, the generated force exceeded (overshot) the target, that is, the
participant underestimated the trunk extension force they were gener­
ating. Negative values represent undershooting, consistent with over­
estimation of the force that was generated. Both errors were interpreted
as a distorted sense of effort.
Drift: The overall drift of the generated trunk extension force away
from the target over the course of the trial was calculated by fitting a
linear trendline through the generated extension force. A trendline
sloping upward (positive slope) would represent a trend of a progressive
increase in force generated by the participant (i.e., progressive increase
in underestimation of the generated trunk extension force). A downward
sloping trendline (negative slope) would represent a trend of a pro­
Fig. 1. (A) The experimental set-up showing a participant in the semi-seated
gressive decrease in force generated by the participant.
position in an aluminium frame with the pelvis fixed bilaterally over the
anterior superior iliac spines and the sacrum. A harness was connected via a
cable and pulley to a load cell. (B) The pseudo-random target waveform (black 2.5. Statistical analysis
line) and an illustration of a generated trunk extension force (grey line). (C) The
monitor displayed the target force as a horizontal line (a) which moved up and A two-way mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one
down semi-randomly. In trials with visual feedback, a second horizontal line (b) group factor (GROUP: cLBP vs. control) and one repeated-measures
displayed the generated trunk extension force. The boundaries between which factor (CONDITION: visual feedback vs. no visual feedback) evaluated
the target force varied (c: 3% MVC; d: 10%MVC) were displayed throughout differences in the area between the waveforms, overall undershooting or
all trials. overshooting of the target force, and differences in the slope of the
The force-matching task was performed in two different conditions. trendline between participants with and without cLBP (Statistica, Stat­
In one condition, the participant received visual feedback about the Soft, Tulsa, OK). Characteristics of the participant groups were
target and the generated force. Both forces were displayed on a com­ compared with unpaired t-tests. The level of significance was set at p <
puter monitor as horizontal lines of different colours (Fig. 1C). In the 0.05.
other condition, visual feedback of the generated force was removed to
eliminate exteroceptive input (vision). In this condition, the target force 3. Results
and the lower (3%) and upper (10%) limits were displayed. Visual
feedback about their force generation was removed once the participant 3.1. Participants
had maintained the starting force level of 6.5% of MVC for 2–3 s. The
conditions were offered in random order and each condition was per­ There were no significant differences between the participants with
formed once with 2 min rest between trials. One practice trial with vi­ and without cLBP for age, height, body weight, body mass index and
sual feedback was performed prior to commencement of the study to level of physical activity during work, sport or leisure (Table 1). For the
familiarise the participants with the experimental set-up, tasks and the cLBP group, the mean level of pain was mild on the day of testing and
required force level. moderate when at its worst (Jensen et al., 2003). People with cLBP re­
Spike 2 software and a Micro 1401 data acquisition system (Cam­ ported a mild to moderate level of disability (Table 1).
bridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK) were used to generate the
waveform of the target force and to collect the data. The extension force 3.2. Sense of effort
produced by the participant was measured with a load cell (Model L235,
Futek, Irvine, CA) connected to the cable that provided resistance to 3.2.1. Accuracy
trunk extension. Signals from the load cell were amplified (SG71, Absence of visual feedback had a different effect on error area for
Valydine, Northridge, CA) and sampled at 100 Hz. participants with cLBP compared to pain-free controls (Group × Con­
dition interaction: p = 0.023; Fig. 2A). There was no difference in error
area between the cLBP group and the control group when visual feed­
2.4. Data analysis back was available (p = 0.38). Although removal of visual feedback
increased the error area for both groups (p < 0.0001), the increase in
Data files were imported into Matlab for analysis (The Mathworks, error area was significantly larger for the cLBP group compared to the
Natick, MA). Fig. 1B shows the target force waveform and an example of control group (p = 0.023).

3
M.W. Coppieters et al. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

overshooting of the target force (p = 0.93). In contrast, cLBP partici­

pants significantly undershot the target force in the absence of visual
feedback relative to trials with feedback (p = 0.020). That is, partici­
pants with cLBP overestimated their generated trunk extension force
during the force-matching task.

3.2.3. Drift
Fig. 3 illustrates the mean trunk extension force and the trendlines
fitted through this extension force for the cLBP and control group. The
corresponding slope values are shown in Fig. 2C. In the presence of vi­
sual feedback, the trendline was nearly horizontal for both control (slope
(mean (SD)): 0.00001 (0.00001)) and cLBP (slope: 0.00001 (0.00001))
participants. Removal of visual feedback had a different effect for
healthy participants and people with cLBP (Group × Condition inter­
action: p = 0.034). Whereas the slope of the trendline remained largely
unchanged when visual feedback was removed for controls (slope:
0.00002 (0.00019); p = 0.80), the slope of the trendline decreased
significantly in the absence of visual feedback for those with cLBP
(slope: 0.00025 (0.00033); p = 0.016). That is the cLBP participants
overestimated the generated trunk extension with a progressively
greater amount over time.

4. Discussion

The results of this study support the hypothesis that sense of effort is
altered in people with cLBP. Trials with visual feedback demonstrated
that participants with and without cLBP could perform the task accu­
rately. Yet, when visual feedback was removed, participants with cLBP
matched the force less accurately than control participants, and under­
shot the target force. This can be interpreted as overestimation of the
force generated by their extensor muscles. The discrepancy between the
target and generated force increased over the duration of the task.
Deficits in proprioception in LBP have generally been attributed to
impaired afference from paraspinal muscle spindles or changes to its
central processing (Brumagne et al., 2000; Parkhurst and Burnett,
1994). Although kinaesthesia has been considered to depend on pe­
ripheral afferent signals from cutaneous and joint receptors (Skoglund,
1973) and that muscle spindles play a key role in sense of position and
movement (Goodwin et al., 1972), muscle spindles have several draw­
backs as position sensors. The most important is that sensitivity of
muscle spindles is influenced by fusimotor control (Gandevia et al.,
2006). This means that spindles provide potentially ambiguous infor­
mation and discharge can be modulated by intrafusal muscle contrac­
tions or result of muscle stretch (Proske, 2005). If muscle spindles are
not optimal for position sense, the current common interpretation of
proprioceptive deficits in LBP may require revision. Compelling evi­
dence that motor commands and effort contribute to position sense was
previously revealed (Gandevia et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2009). Gandevia
et al., (2006) showed that with the forearm and hand paralysed
Fig. 2. (A) Accuracy: Without visual feedback, the error was significantly larger (anaesthesised by ischaemic block), the perceived wrist angle changed
for both groups, but the increase in error was significantly larger for the LBP by ~20◦ in the direction of effort during attempted wrist flexion or
group compared to the control group. (B) Undershooting or overshooting: In extension. Further, Smith et al., (2009) showed that the amplitude of the
contrast to the control group which showed no difference, when visual feedback illusion depends on the level of effort. Similar results but of a smaller
was removed, the LBP group significantly undershot the target force, indicating
magnitude were found when the arm was paralysed but with afferent
that they overestimated their actual trunk extension force. (C) Drift: Without
signals intact.
visual feedback, the slope of the trendline decreased significantly for the LBP
group, whereas it remained largely unchanged for the control group. Please
It is plausible that distorted sense of effort can, at least in part,
note, all slope values are multiplied by 104. Results from statistical analyses are explain deficits in repositioning error in LBP. Most paradigms used to
reported in the text. Error bars represent one standard deviation. investigate position sense in LBP have involved active reproduction of
target positions of the trunk (Brumagne et al., 2000; Field et al., 1997;
3.2.2. Undershooting or overshooting Gill and Callaghan, 1998; Koumantakis et al., 2002; Lam et al., 1999;
There was no consistent undershoot or overshoot of the target when Newcomer et al., 2000a; Newcomer et al., 2000b; O’Sullivan et al.,
visual feedback was available. Removal of visual feedback had a 2003; Parkhurst and Burnett, 1994). Although this has been interpreted
different effect for people with and without cLBP (Group × Condition to rely on muscle spindle feedback, participants may also use repro­
interaction p = 0.036; Fig. 2B). For the control participants, removal of duction/matching sense of effort to reproduce the target position. As the
visual feedback did not lead to a consistent undershooting or tasks involve movement, it is difficult to disentangle whether the
observed deficits are explained by altered input from

4
M.W. Coppieters et al. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

Fig. 3. The mean trunk extension forces for

the LBP group and control participants dur­
ing the trials with visual feedback (B) and
without visual feedback (C). With visual
feedback, the slope of the trendlines was
horizontal and the trendline of both groups
overlapped. Without visual feedback, the
trendline for the control participants
remained horizontal, but the slope of the
trendline for the LBP group became nega­
tive, indicating that participants in the LBP
group progressively overestimated their
trunk extension force. Panel (A) shows the
target force. %MVC: Percentage of
maximum voluntary contraction.

position/movement sensors, their central processing, sense of effort, or a derived afferent information for provision of proprioceptive information
combination. To minimise the contribution of position/movement sen­ (Proske, 2005) and how the mechanisms underpinning this distortion in
sors and more specifically assess sense of effort, we designed a static LBP. This will depend on greater understanding of the brain mechanisms
force-matching paradigm. Using this paradigm, we showed consistent involved in the sensation of effort. Experiments that have used trans­
undershooting of target forces in cLBP participants. Our interpretation cranial magnetic stimulation have demonstrated that a motor response
of these results is that people with cLBP perceived that the back muscles elicited via stimulation of the motor cortex is not accompanied by any
were generating more force than actual. This implies overestimation of sensation of effort (Ellaway et al., 2004; Gandevia et al., 1993). Thus, it
force in people with cLBP. Our observations do not exclude a concurrent is assumed that the effort signal is not simply derived from a copy of the
contribution of muscle spindles to position sense. Previous work has output of the motor cortex but arises somewhere upstream of the motor
shown that vibration of contracting muscles during a force matching cortex (Carson et al., 2002; Proske et al., 2004). Further investigation of
task increases the error (Boucher et al., 2015), demonstrating a pe­ this problem will aid interpretation of how this sense cooperates with
ripheral component to force/position sensation (Cafarelli and Kostka, motor output, how this changes in pain, and whether this can be recti­
1981; McCloskey et al., 1974). It is unlikely that our results can be fied with rehabilitation.
explained by pain interference (Moseley and Hodges, 2005) or changes We conclude that the most plausible interpretation of the results of
in muscle morphology or muscle function (Hodges and Danneels, 2019) this study is that sense of effort is altered in people with cLBP compared
in the cLBP group as there was no difference in performance when to pain-free controls. If confirmed in other studies, assessment and
feedback was provided. management of deficits in sense of effort in people with cLBP may be
Several studies have evaluated the perception of muscle tension in included in multimodal interventions in future clinical efficacy trials.
LBP (Flor et al. 1992, 1999). Individuals with and without LBP differ in
their ability to discriminate levels of muscle tension (Flor et al., 1999). Funding
Because the patient group had difficulty estimating muscle tension in
both the affected area (erector spinae) and an unaffected region (fron­ This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
talis muscle), it was argued that the sensory deficit might not be due to agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
dysfunction of local muscle receptors, but might be related to a central
perceptual deficit (Flor et al., 1999). Declaration of competing interest
A limitation of the current study is that matching the target force
depended on memory of the relationship between sense of effort and Declarations of interest: none. The authors have no competing
target forces in trials with visual feedback. Although memory may be interests.
affected in cLBP (Ling et al., 2007; Lourenco Jorge et al., 2009), this
would be expected to lead to error characterised by both overshooting References
and undershooting of force, rather than a predominantly undershooting
of the target force. A future challenge will be to further investigate the Boucher, J.A., Normand, M.C., Boisseau, E., Descarreaux, M., 2015. Sensorimotor control
interaction between centrally derived sense of effort and peripherally during peripheral muscle vibration: an experimental study. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther.
38, 35–43.

5
M.W. Coppieters et al. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice 53 (2021) 102376

Brooks, J., Allen, T.J., Proske, U., 2013. The senses of force and heaviness at the human Ling, J., Campbell, C., Heffernan, T.M., Greenough, C.G., 2007. Short-term prospective
elbow joint. Exp. Brain Res. 226, 617–629. memory deficits in chronic back pain patients. Psychosom. Med. 69, 144–148.
Brumagne, S., Cordo, P., Lysens, R., Verschueren, S., Swinnen, S., 2000. The role of Lourenco Jorge, L., Gerard, C., Revel, M., 2009. Evidences of memory dysfunction and
paraspinal muscle spindles in lumbosacral position sense in individuals with and maladaptive coping in chronic low back pain and rheumatoid arthritis patients:
without low back pain. Spine 25, 989–994. challenges for rehabilitation. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 45 (4), 469–477. https://
Cafarelli, E., Kostka, C.E., 1981. Effect of vibration on static force sensation in man. Exp. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20032904/.
Neurol. 74, 331–340. Luu, B.L., Day, B.L., Cole, J.D., Fitzpatrick, R.C., 2011. The fusimotor and reafferent
Carson, R.G., Riek, S., Shahbazpour, N., 2002. Central and peripheral mediation of origin of the sense of force and weight. J. Physiol. 589, 3135–3147.
human force sensation following eccentric or concentric contractions. J. Physiol. Macefield, V.G., Knellwolf, T.P., 2018. Functional properties of human muscle spindles.
539, 913–925. J. Neurophysiol. 120, 452–467.
Carvalho, F.A., Morelhao, P.K., Franco, M.R., Maher, C.G., Smeets, R., Oliveira, C.B., McCloskey, D.I., Ebeling, P., Goodwin, G.M., 1974. Estimation of weights and tensions
Freitas Junior, I.F., Pinto, R.Z., 2017. Reliability and validity of two and apparent involvement of a "sense of effort". Exp. Neurol. 42, 220–232.
multidimensional self-reported physical activity questionnaires in people with Monjo, F., Shemmell, J., Forestier, N., 2018. The sensory origin of the sense of effort is
chronic low back pain. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 27, 65–70. context-dependent. Exp. Brain Res. 236, 1997–2008.
Chiarotto, A., Boers, M., Deyo, R.A., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T.P., Costa, L.O.P., Foster, N. Moseley, G.L., Hodges, P.W., 2005. Are the changes in postural control associated with
E., Grotle, M., Koes, B.W., Kovacs, F.M., Lin, C.C., Maher, C.G., Pearson, A.M., low back pain caused by pain interference? Clin. J. Pain 21, 323–329.
Peul, W.C., Schoene, M.L., Turk, D.C., van Tulder, M.W., Terwee, C.B., Ostelo, R.W., Newcomer, K., Laskowski, E.R., Yu, B., Larson, D.R., An, K.N., 2000a. Repositioning error
2018. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low in low back pain. Comparing trunk repositioning error in subjects with chronic low
back pain. Pain 159, 481–495. back pain and control subjects. Spine 25, 245–250.
de Morree, H.M., Klein, C., Marcora, S.M., 2012. Perception of effort reflects central Newcomer, K.L., Laskowski, E.R., Yu, B., Johnson, J.C., An, K.N., 2000b. Differences in
motor command during movement execution. Psychophysiology 49, 1242–1253. repositioning error among patients with low back pain compared with control
Ellaway, P.H., Prochazka, A., Chan, M., Gauthier, M.J., 2004. The sense of movement subjects. Spine 25, 2488–2493.
elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation in humans is due to sensory feedback. O’Sullivan, P.B., Burnett, A., Floyd, A.N., Gadsdon, K., Logiudice, J., Miller, D.,
J. Physiol. 556, 651–660. Quirke, H., 2003. Lumbar repositioning deficit in a specific low back pain
Field, E., Abdel-Moty, E., Loudon, J., 1997. The effect of back injury and load on ability population. Spine 28, 1074–1079.
to replicate a novel posture. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 8, 199–207. Parkhurst, T.M., Burnett, C.N., 1994. Injury and proprioception in the lower back.
Flor, H., Furst, M., Birbaumer, N., 1999. Deficient discrimination of EMG levels and J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 19, 282–295.
overestimation of perceived tension in chronic pain patients. Appl. Psychophysiol. Pols, M.A., Peeters, P.H., Bueno-De-Mesquita, H.B., Ocke, M.C., Wentink, C.A.,
Biofeedback 24, 55–66. Kemper, H.C., Collette, H.J., 1995. Validity and repeatability of a modified Baecke
Flor, H., Schugens, M.M., Birbaumer, N., 1992. Discrimination of muscle tension in questionnaire on physical activity. Int. J. Epidemiol. 24, 381–388.
chronic pain patients and healthy controls. Biofeedback Self. Regul. 17, 165–177. Pranata, A., Perraton, L., El-Ansary, D., Clark, R., Fortin, K., Dettmann, T., Brandham, R.,
Gandevia, S.C., Killian, K., McKenzie, D.K., Crawford, M., Allen, G.M., Gorman, R.B., Bryant, A., 2017. Lumbar extensor muscle force control is associated with disability
Hales, J.P., 1993. Respiratory sensations, cardiovascular control, kinaesthesia and in people with chronic low back pain. Clin. Biomech. 46, 46–51.
transcranial stimulation during paralysis in humans. J. Physiol. 470, 85–107. Proske, U., 2005. What is the role of muscle receptors in proprioception? Muscle Nerve
Gandevia, S.C., Smith, J.L., Crawford, M., Proske, U., Taylor, J.L., 2006. Motor 31, 780–787.
commands contribute to human position sense. J. Physiol. 571, 703–710. Proske, U., Allen, T., 2019. The neural basis of the senses of effort, force and heaviness.
Gill, K.P., Callaghan, M.J., 1998. The measurement of lumbar proprioception in Exp. Brain Res. 237, 589–599.
individuals with and without low back pain. Spine 23, 371–377. Proske, U., Gandevia, S.C., 2012. The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signaling body
Goodwin, G.M., McCloskey, D.I., Matthews, P.B.C., 1972. The contribution of muscle shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol. Rev. 92, 1651–1697.
afferents to kinaesthesia shown by vibration induced illusions of movement and by Proske, U., Gregory, J.E., Morgan, D.L., Percival, P., Weerakkody, N.S., Canny, B.J.,
the effects of paralysing joint afferents. Brain 95, 705–748. 2004. Force matching errors following eccentric exercise. Hum. Mov. Sci. 23,
Hodges, P.W., Danneels, L., 2019. Changes in structure and function of the back muscles 365–378.
in low back pain: different time points, observations, and mechanisms. J. Orthop. Skoglund, S., 1973. Joint receptors and kinaesthesis. In: Iggo, A. (Ed.), Handbook of
Sports Phys. Ther. 49, 464–476. Sensory Physiology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 111–136.
Jensen, M.P., Chen, C., Brugger, A.M., 2003. Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings Smith, J.L., Crawford, M., Proske, U., Taylor, J.L., Gandevia, S.C., 2009. Signals of motor
and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J. Pain 4, command bias joint position sense in the presence of feedback from proprioceptors.
407–414. J. Appl. Physiol. 106, 950–958.
Jones, S.L., Hitt, J.R., DeSarno, M.J., Henry, S.M., 2012. Individuals with non-specific Tong, M.H., Mousavi, S.J., Kiers, H., Ferreira, P., Refshauge, K., van Dieen, J., 2017. Is
low back pain in an active episode demonstrate temporally altered torque responses there a relationship between lumbar proprioception and low back pain? A systematic
and direction-specific enhanced muscle activity following unexpected balance review with meta-analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98, 120–136 e2.
perturbations. Exp. Brain Res. 221, 413–426. van den Hoorn, W., Bruijn, S.M., Meijer, O.G., Hodges, P.W., van Dieen, J.H., 2012.
Koumantakis, G.A., Winstanley, J., Oldham, J.A., 2002. Thoracolumbar proprioception Mechanical coupling between transverse plane pelvis and thorax rotations during
in individuals with and without low back pain: intratester reliability, clinical gait is higher in people with low back pain. J. Biomech. 45, 342–347.
applicability, and validity. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 32, 327–335. Walsh, L.D., Hesse, C.W., Morgan, D.L., Proske, U., 2004. Human forearm position sense
Laird, R.A., Gilbert, J., Kent, P., Keating, J.L., 2014. Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics after fatigue of elbow flexor muscles. J. Physiol. 558, 705–715.
in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Weerakkody, N., Percival, P., Morgan, D.L., Gregory, J.E., Proske, U., 2003. Matching
Muscoskel. Disord. 229. different levels of isometric torque in elbow flexor muscles after eccentric exercise.
Lam, S.S., Jull, G., Treleaven, J., 1999. Lumbar spine kinesthesia in patients with low Exp. Brain Res. 149, 141–150.
back pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 29, 294–299.