Biomechanics of foetal movement.

© 2015, AO Research Institute. All rights reserved.Foetal movements commence at seven weeks of gestation, with the foetal movement repertoire including twitches, whole body movements, stretches, isolated limb movements, breathing movements, head and neck movements, jaw movements (including yawning, sucking and swallowing) and hiccups by ten weeks of gestational age. There are two key biomechanical aspects to gross foetal movements; the first being that the foetus moves in a dynamically changing constrained physical environment in which the freedom to move becomes increasingly restricted with increasing foetal size and decreasing amniotic fluid. Therefore, the mechanical environment experienced by the foetus affects its ability to move freely. Secondly, the mechanical forces induced by foetal movements are crucial for normal skeletal development, as evidenced by a number of conditions and syndromes for which reduced or abnormal foetal movements are implicated, such as developmental dysplasia of the hip, arthrogryposis and foetal akinesia deformation sequence. This review examines both the biomechanical effects of the physical environment on foetal movements through discussion of intrauterine factors, such as space, foetal positioning and volume of amniotic fluid, and the biomechanical role of gross foetal movements in human skeletal development through investigation of the effects of abnormal movement on the bones and joints. This review also highlights computational simulations of foetal movements that attempt to determine the mechanical forces acting on the foetus as it moves. Finally, avenues for future research into foetal movement biomechanics are highlighted, which have potential impact for a diverse range of fields including foetal medicine, musculoskeletal disorders and tissue engineering

Natural Variation and Neuromechanical Systems

Natural variation plays an important but subtle and often ignored role in neuromechanical systems. This is especially important when designing for living or hybrid systems \ud which involve a biological or self-assembling component. Accounting for natural variation can be accomplished by taking a population phenomics approach to modeling and analyzing such systems. I will advocate the position that noise in neuromechanical systems is partially represented by natural variation inherent in user physiology. Furthermore, this noise can be augmentative in systems that couple physiological systems with technology. There are several tools and approaches that can be borrowed from computational biology to characterize the populations of users as they interact with the technology. In addition to transplanted approaches, the potential of natural variation can be understood as having a range of effects on both the individual's physiology and function of the living/hybrid system over time. Finally, accounting for natural variation can be put to good use in human-machine system design, as three prescriptions for exploiting variation in design are proposed

Trigeminal Electrophysiology: a 2 × 2 matrix model for differential diagnosis between temporomandibular disorders and orofacial pain

Background Pain due to temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) often has the same clinical symptoms and signs as other types of orofacial pain (OP). The possible presence of serious neurological and/or systemic organic pathologies makes differential diagnosis difficult, especially in early disease stages. In the present study, we performed a qualitative and quantitative electrophysiological evaluation of the neuromuscular responses of the trigeminal nervous system. Using the jaw jerk reflex (JJ) and the motor evoked potentials of the trigeminal roots (bR-MEPs) tests, we investigated the functional and organic responses of healthy subjects (control group) and patients with TMD symptoms (TMD group). Method Thirty-three patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms and 36 control subjects underwent two electromyographic (EMG) tests: the jaw jerk reflex test and the motor evoked potentials of the trigeminal roots test using bilateral electrical transcranial stimulation. The mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum values were computed for the EMG absolute values. The ratio between the EMG values obtained on each side was always computed with the reference side as the numerator. For the TMD group, this side was identified as the painful side (pain side), while for the control group this was taken as the non-preferred masticatory side (non-preferred side). The 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles were also calculated. Results Analysis of the ratios (expressed as percentages) between the values obtained on both sides revealed a high degree of symmetry in the bR-MEPs % in the control (0.93 ± 0.12%) and TMD (0.91 ± 0.22%) groups. This symmetry indicated organic integrity of the trigeminal root motor fibers and correct electrode arrangement. A degree of asymmetry of the jaw jerk's amplitude between sides (ipJJ%), when the mandible was kept in the intercuspal position, was found in the TMD group (0.24% ± 0.14%) with a statistically significant difference in relation to the control group (0.61% ± 0.2%). This asymmetry seemed to be primarily due to a failure to facilitate the reflex on the painful side in intercuspal position. Conclusions In this 2 × 2 matrix diagnostic model, three different types of headache may be identified: 1) those due to organic pathologies directly and indirectly involving the trigeminal nervous system denoted as "Organic Damage"; 2) those in TMD patients; 3) other types of orofacial pain in subjects who could erroneously be considered healthy, denoted as Orofacial Pain "OP". This category of patient should be considered at risk, as organic neurological pathologies could be present and yet not directly affect the trigeminal system, at least in the early stages of the disease.</p