Inferior g protection with an electrical muscle stimulation suit compared to a standard g-suit.

Ulf I Balldin, John A Gibbons
{"title":"Inferior g protection with an electrical muscle stimulation suit compared to a standard g-suit.","authors":"Ulf I Balldin,&nbsp;John A Gibbons","doi":"10.3357/ASEM.4082.2014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At +1 Gz, electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has been shown to increase systemic blood pressure similarly to a standard G-suit or lower body muscle straining. It was hypothesized that EMS might improve G protection at increased G levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An EMS suit was developed with electrodes over the calves, thighs, gluteal, and abdominal muscles. Using nine subjects, the EMS suit was compared to a standard five-bladder G-suit during various G profiles up to +9 Gz in a human-rated centrifuge with EMS activated by electrical muscle stimulators at G levels at or above +4 Gz. The optimal EMS stimulation for a solid muscle contraction was determined for each muscle group in each subject prior to the G exposures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean maximal G level attained in the standard suit was 1.1 G higher during a relaxed gradual onset profile, 1.5 G higher during a relaxed rapid onset profile, and 2.0 G higher during a straining rapid onset profile when compared to the EMS suit. During a simulated aerial combat maneuver (SACM) ride, duration was 46 s longer with the standard suit compared to the EMS. During the SACM, the average heart rate was 23 bpm lower with the standard suit compared to EMS. All of the above differences were statistically significant. Finally, there were four G-LOCs with the EMS and none with the standard suit.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The tested EMS suit did not give sufficient G protection at high Gs for pilots, nor substitute for a standard G-suit, as indicated by lower G protection and the episodes of G-LOC.</p>","PeriodicalId":8676,"journal":{"name":"Aviation, space, and environmental medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3357/ASEM.4082.2014","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aviation, space, and environmental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.4082.2014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: At +1 Gz, electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has been shown to increase systemic blood pressure similarly to a standard G-suit or lower body muscle straining. It was hypothesized that EMS might improve G protection at increased G levels.

Methods: An EMS suit was developed with electrodes over the calves, thighs, gluteal, and abdominal muscles. Using nine subjects, the EMS suit was compared to a standard five-bladder G-suit during various G profiles up to +9 Gz in a human-rated centrifuge with EMS activated by electrical muscle stimulators at G levels at or above +4 Gz. The optimal EMS stimulation for a solid muscle contraction was determined for each muscle group in each subject prior to the G exposures.

Results: The mean maximal G level attained in the standard suit was 1.1 G higher during a relaxed gradual onset profile, 1.5 G higher during a relaxed rapid onset profile, and 2.0 G higher during a straining rapid onset profile when compared to the EMS suit. During a simulated aerial combat maneuver (SACM) ride, duration was 46 s longer with the standard suit compared to the EMS. During the SACM, the average heart rate was 23 bpm lower with the standard suit compared to EMS. All of the above differences were statistically significant. Finally, there were four G-LOCs with the EMS and none with the standard suit.

Conclusion: The tested EMS suit did not give sufficient G protection at high Gs for pilots, nor substitute for a standard G-suit, as indicated by lower G protection and the episodes of G-LOC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肌肉电刺激服的防护效果不如标准的防护服。。
背景:在+1 Gz时,肌肉电刺激(EMS)已显示出与标准g服或下半身肌肉紧张相似的全身血压升高。假设EMS可能在G水平升高时改善G保护。方法:在小腿、大腿、臀肌和腹部肌肉上安装电极。使用9名受试者,在人体额定离心机中,EMS服与标准五膀胱G服在高达+9 Gz的各种G曲线下进行比较,EMS由G水平在+4 Gz或以上的电肌肉刺激器激活。在G暴露之前,确定了每个受试者的每个肌肉群对实体肌肉收缩的最佳EMS刺激。结果:与EMS宇航服相比,标准宇航服在放松的渐进发作型时达到的平均最大G水平高1.1 G,在放松的快速发作型时高1.5 G,在紧张的快速发作型时高2.0 G。在模拟空战机动(SACM)飞行中,与EMS相比,标准套装的持续时间长46秒。在SACM期间,与EMS相比,标准套装的平均心率降低了23 bpm。以上差异均有统计学意义。最后,有四个使用EMS的g - loc,没有一个使用标准套装。结论:从低G保护和G- loc的发作来看,EMS服不能为飞行员提供足够的高G保护,也不能替代标准的G服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Aviation, space, and environmental medicine
Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 months
期刊最新文献
Chronic bacterial prostatitis. Carpe diem. Temperature changes in selected areas of body surface induced by systemic cryostimulation. Comparison of in-flight measures with predictions of a bio-mathematical fatigue model. Demographic and occupational predictors of neck pain in pilots: analysis and multinational comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1