title: Determine the effect of neck muscle fatigue on dynamic visual acuity in healthy young adults.
abstract: [Purpose] The aim of this study was to determine whether neck muscle fatigue affects dynamic visual acuity in healthy young participants. [Subjects and Methods] This study was a double-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Thirty healthy young subjects (ages 21 to 30 years) participated in the study. Participants were randomly divided into an experimental group (n=15) and a control group (n=15). The experimental group performed an exercise designed to induce neck muscle fatigue and the control group preformed non-fatiguing sham exercises. [Results] There were significant differences in mean dynamic visual acuity between the two groups (0.26±0.11 LogMar versus 0.003±0.02 LogMar). Subjects in the experimental group showed a significant decline in their dynamic visual acuity compared with the control group. Dynamic visual acuity strongly correlated with neck muscle fatigue (r = 0.79). No significant differences in joint position error were observed between the two groups and no significant correlations between joint position error and neck muscle fatigue were observed (r = 0.23). [Conclusion] The results of this study suggest that neck muscle fatigue negatively impacts dynamic visual acuity. Although not statistically significant, cervical spine proprioception as measured by the joint position error in the experimental group was diminished after fatigue.
authors: Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.
authors: Amer A
authors: AA
authors: Al Saif
authors: Department of Public Heath, Faculty of Nursing, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.
authors: Samira
authors: S
authors: Al Senany
keywords: Cervical vertigo; Dizziness
references: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16 Suppl 1:55-8
references: 2345867
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Sep;77(9):874-82
references: 8822677
references: Neurosci Lett. 2005 Apr 22;378(3):135-9
references: 15781146
references: Exp Brain Res. 1973 Dec 20;18(5):512-30
references: 4794882
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Mar;83(3):412-5
references: 11887124
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Apr;72(5):288-91
references: 2009044
references: Physiother Theory Pract. 2008 Sep-Oct;24(5):380-91
references: 18821444
references: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000 Dec;30(12):755-66
references: 11153554
references: Scand J Rehabil Med. 1996 Sep;28(3):133-8
references: 8885035
references: Man Ther. 2009 Jun;14 (3):270-7
references: 18514016
references: Am J Otol. 1998 Nov;19(6):790-6
references: 9831156
references: J Neurophysiol. 2002 Oct;88(4):1980-99
references: 12364523
references: Acta Otolaryngol. 1998 Nov;118(6):778-82
references: 9870619
references: Aging Clin Exp Res. 2008 Aug;20(4):355-8
references: 18852550
references: Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Mar;117(3):610-22
references: 16427356
references: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009 Feb;9(1):49-64
references: 19371179
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 May;86(5):1062-4
references: 15895360
references: Neuroscience. 2003;121(2):277-85
references: 14521987
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Sep;79(9):1089-94
references: 9749689
references: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 May;39(5):364-77
references: 19411769
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Feb 1;35(3):294-7
references: 20075783
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Jun;19(5):473-9
references: 15182982
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Aug;75(8):895-9
references: 8053797
references: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Dec;89(12):2375-8
references: 19061750
references: Prog Neurobiol. 1991;37(2):165-78
references: 1947176
references: Am J Otol. 1998 Jan;19(1):76-81
references: 9455954