Skip to main content
Log in

Randomized study of the application of single motor unit biofeedback training to chronic low back pain

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of single motor unit biofeedback training (SMUBT) techniques was compared to traditional therapies in treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). Thirty-six volunteers (who experienced daily pain for 7 years in the T8 to S1 area) were randomly assigned to one of three treatments; SMUBT, relaxation training, or an educational program. The pain level and electromyographic activity of all subjects were assessed by a person blind to the treatment; before, immediately after, and 90 days after treatment. The SMUBT group reported immediately decreased pain which was maintained at 90 days, the relaxation group showed no changes, while the education group reported decreased pain at 90 days. The EMG results showed decreased amplitude and bilateral differences for the SMUBT and education groups. A 4-year follow-up revealed the SMUBT group remained symptom free. Implications and discussion of the results concludes the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Basmajian JV. Research foundations of EMG biofeedback in rehabilitation.Biofeedback Self-Regulation 1988; 13(4): 275–298.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yates AJ.Biofeedback and the modification of behavior. New York: Plenum, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basmajian JV. Control and training of individual motor units. In: Peper E, Ancoli S, Quinn M, eds.Mind/body integration: Essential readings in biofeedback. New York: Plenum, 1979, pp. 371–375.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Basmajian JV, Baeza M, Fabrigar C. Conscious control and training of individual motor meurons in normal human subjects.J New Drugs 1965; 5: 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Simard TG, Basmajian JV. Methods in training the conscious control of motor units.Arch Phys Med 1966; 48: 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lloyd A, Leibrecht B. Conditioning of a single motor unit.J Exp Psychol 1971; 88: 391–395.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson CP. Analysis of five tests commonly used in determining the ability to control single motor units.Am J Phys Med 1976; 55(3): 113–121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Binder-Macleod SA. Biofeedback in stroke rehabilitation. In: Basmajian JV, ed.Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1983, pp. 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wolf SL. Electromyographic biofeedback applications to stroke patients: A critical review.J Am Phys Ther Assoc 1983; 63(9): 1448–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeBacher G. Biofeedback in spasticity control. In: Basmajian JV, ed.Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1983, pp. 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wolf SL, Binder-Macleod SA. Electromyographic biofeedback applications to the hemiplegic patient: Changes in lower extremity neuromuscular and functional status.J Am Phys Ther Assoc 1983; 63: 1404–1413.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wolf SL, Binder-Macleod SA. Electromyographic biofeedback applications to the hemiplegic patient: Changes in upper extremity neuromuscular and functional status.J Am Phys Ther Assoc 1983; 63: 1404–1413.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brudney J. Biofeedback in chronic neurological cases: Therapeutic electromyography. In: White L, Turskey B, eds.Clinical biofeedback: Efficacy and mechanisms. New York: Guilford, 1982, pp. 249–276.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dale A, Anderson DE, Lutton LM. Agonist-antagonist electromyographic biofeedback and neuromuscular re-education: A case study.Am J Clin Biofeedback 1983; 6(1): 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mulder T, Hulstijn W. The effect of fatigue and task repetition on the surface electromyographic signal. In: Mulder T, ed.The learning of motor control following brain damage: Experimental and clinical studies. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1985, pp. 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mulder T, Hustijn W. Delayed sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task. In: Mulder T, ed.The learning of motor control following brain damage: Experimental and clinical studies. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1985, pp. 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mulder T, Hustijn W. Sensory feedback in the learning of a novel motor task. In: Mulder T, ed.The learning of motor control following brain damage: Experimental and clinical studies. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1985, pp. 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Price JP, Clare MH, Ewerhardt FH. Studies of low backache with persistent muscle spasm.Arch Phys Med 1948; 29: 703–709.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cram JR.Clinical EMG: Muscle scanning and diagnostic manual for surface recordings. Seattle: Clinical Resources, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Janda V. Muscles, central nervous system regulation. In: Korr IM, ed.The neurobiologic mechanisms in manipulative therapy. New York: Plenum, 1978, pp. 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wolf SL, Basmajian JV. Assessment of paraspinal electromyographic activity in normal subjects and in chronic back pain patients using a muscle biofeedback device. In: Asmussen E, Jorgensen K, eds.International series on biomechanics. VIB, 1978, pp. 319–324.

  22. Wolf SL, Basmajian JV, Russe TC, Kutner M. Normative data on low back mobility and activity levels.Am J Phys Med 1979; 58: 217–229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolf SL, Nacht M, Kelly JL. EMG feedback training during dynamic movement for low back pain patients.Behav Ther 1982; 13: 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Melzack R. McGill Comprehensive Pain Questionnaire interviewer guide. In: Melzack R, ed.Pain measurement and assessment. New York: Raven, 1983, pp. 10A-14A.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Huskisson EC. Visual analogue scales. In: Melzack R, ed.Pain measurement and assessment. New York: Raven, 1983, pp. 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  26. University of Minnesota.Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory group form test booklet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Interstate Commerce Commission.Table of 105,000 random decimal digits. Washington, D.C., 1949.

  28. Johnson HE, Hockersmith V. Therapeutic electromyography in chronic back pain. In: Basmajian JV, ed.Biofeedback: Principles and practice for clinicians. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1983, pp. 306–310.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Leary MR, Altmaier EM. Type I error in counselling research: A plea for multivariate analyses.J Counsel Psychol 1980; 27(6): 611–615.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tabachnick B, Fidell LS.Using mullivariate statistics. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reading AE. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: An appraisal. In: Melzack R, ed.Pain measurement and assessment. New York: Raven, 1983, pp. 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Swenson WM, Pearson JS, Osborne D.An MMPI source book: Basic item, scale and pattern data on 50,000 medical patients. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Melzack R, Wall PD.The challenge of pain. New York: Basic Books, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shellenberger R, Green JA.From the ghost in the box to successful biofeedback training. Greeley, CO.: Health Psychology Publications, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kottke F. From reflex to skill: The training of coordination.Arch Phys Med Rehab 1980; 61: 551–561.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donaldson, S., Romney, D., Donaldson, M. et al. Randomized study of the application of single motor unit biofeedback training to chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehab 4, 23–37 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02109994

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02109994

Key words

Navigation