Research in Sports Medicine and Technology

The effect of shoulder abduction angles, shoulder dominance and non-dominance and external loading on shoulder muscles co-contraction ratio in overhead athletes and non-athletes

Authors

Hossein Hosseinimehr
Mehrdad Anbarian
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of shoulder abduction angles, dominant and non-dominant arm and external loading on co-contraction ratio during arm abduction in scapular plane in overhead athletes and non-athletes. 10 swimmers, 10 handball players and 10 tennis players and ten non-athletes voluntarily participated in this study. Electromyography activity of shoulder muscles (middle and anterior deltoid; upper, middle and lower trapezius; infraspinatus, serratus anterior and latissimus dorsi) during dynamic and static arm abduction in 3 different angles (0-45º in 1second and holding it for 3 seconds, 0-90º in 2 seconds and holding it for 3 seconds, 0-135º in 1 second and holding it for 3 seconds) was recorded for dominant and non-dominant arm in loading and non-loading conditions. Co-contraction ratio of shoulder muscles was calculated for both groups. Findings indicated external loading, shoulder dominance and abduction angles had significant effect on shoulder muscles co-contraction ratio during (0-45º, 0-90º, 0-135º) and holding shoulder elevation in scapular plane (45º, 90º, 135º), also there was significant difference in shoulder muscles co-contraction ratio among four groups during and holding elevation in scapular plane (p≤0.05). Significant differences in shoulder muscles co-contraction ratio among athletes group and between athletes and non-athletes may be related to sport demands and adaptation to exercises and extensive use of upper limb as well.

Keywords

Co-contraction
External Load
Dominant Hand
Subjects
1. Veeger, H.E., Van Der Helm, F.C. (2007). Shoulder function: the perfect compromise between mobility and stability. Journal of Biomechanics. 40:2119-29.
2. Nieminen, H., Takala, E.P., Niemi, J., Viikari-Juntura, E. (1995). Muscular synergy in the shoulder during a fatiguing static contraction. Journal of Clinical Biomechanics. 10:309-17.
3. Smith, L.K., Weiss, E.L., Dom Lehmkuhl, L. (1996). Brunnstrom’s clinical kinesiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis.
4. Tuller, B., Turvey, M.T., Fitch, H.L. (1982). The bernstein perspective: II. The concept of muscle linkage or coordinative structure. In: Kelson JAS, editor. Human motor control. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; p. 239-51.
5. Turvey, M.T. (1990). Coordination. Journal of American Psychology. 45(8):938-53.
6. Sharkey, N.A., Marder, R.A. (1995). The rotator cuff opposes superior translation of the humeral head. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 23:270-5.
7. Halder, A.M., O’Driscoll, S.W., Heers, G., Mura, N., Zobitz, M.E., An, K.N., Kreusch-Brinker, R. (2002). Biomechanical comparisons of effects of supraspinatus tendon detachment, tendon defects, and muscle retraction. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American. 84-A(5):780-5.
8. Parsons, I.M., Apreleva, M., Fu, F.H., Woo, S.L.Y. (2002). The effect of rotator cuff tears on reaction forces at the glenohumeral joint. Journal of Orthopedic Research. 20: 439-46.
9. Levangie, P.K., Norkin, C.C. (2001). Joint structure and function: a comprehensive analysis. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.
10. Poppen, N.K., Walker, P.S. (1976). Normal and abnormal motion of the shoulder. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 58:195-201.
11. Graichen, H., Bonel, H., Stammberger, T., Haubner, M., Rohrer, H., Englmeier, K.H., Reiser, M., Eckstein, F. (1999). Three-dimensional analysis of the width of the subacromial space in healthy subjects and patients with impingement syndrome. American Journal of Roentgenology. 172(4):1081-6.
12. Myers, J.B., Hwang, J.B., Pasquale, M.R., Blackburn, J.T., Lephart, S.M. (2009). Rotator cuff coactivation ratios in participants with subacromial impingement syndrome. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 12:603-8.
13. Bertelli, J.A., Ghizoni, M.F. (2005). Long thoracic nerve: anatomy and functional assessment. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 87:993-8.
14. Ballantyne, B.T., O'Hare, S.J., Paschall, J.L., Pavia-Smith, M.M., Pitz, A.M., Gillon, J.F., Soderberg, G.L. (1993). Electromyographic activity of selected shoulder muscles in commonly used therapeutic exercises. Journal of Physical Therapy. 73:668-77.
15. Glousman, R. (1993). Electromyographic analysis and its role in the athletic shoulder. Journal of Clinical Orthopedic and Related Research. 288:27-34.
16. Bak, K., Faunl, P. (1997). Clinical findings in competitive swimmers with shoulder pain. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 25(2):254-60.
17. Borsa, P.A., Scibek, J.S., Jacobson, J.A., Meister, K. (2005). Sonographic stress measurement of glenohumeral joint laxity in collegiate swimmers and age-matched controls. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 33(7):1077-84.
18. Sale, D., MacDougall, D. (1981). Specificity in strength training: A review for the coach and athlete. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 6:87-92
19. Kendall, F.P., McCreary, E.K., Provance, P.G., Rodgers, M.M., Romani, W.A. (2011). Muscles: testing and function, with posture and pain. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins.
20. Criswell, E. (2011). Cram’s introduction to surface electromyography. 2nd ed, Sudbury, Mass. : Jones and Bartlett.
21. Rudolph, K.S., Axe, M.J., Snyder-Mackler, L. (2000). Dynamic stability after ACL injury: who can hop? Knee Surg, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy Journal. 8(5):262-9.
22. Wickham, J., Pizzari, T., Stansfeld, K., Burnside, A., Watson, L. (2010). Quantifying ‘normal’ shoulder muscle activity during abduction. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 20:212-22.
23. Kibler, W.B. (1980). The role of the scapula in athletic shoulder function. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 26(2):325-37.

  • Receive Date 08 June 2026
  • First Publish Date 08 June 2026
  • Publish Date 22 December 2018