Ana Pereira
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Ana Pereira has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ana Figueiredo
Center for Rehabilitation Research (CIR), ESS, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
1 shared publication - Andreia Noites
Center for Rehabilitation Research (CIR), ESS, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
1 shared publication - Andreia S. P. Sousa
Center for Rehabilitation Research (CIR), ESS, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
1 shared publication - Cláudia Silva
Centro de Investigação em Reabilitação (CIR), Escola Superior de Saúde, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
1 shared publication - Maria Lopes
Center for Rehabilitation Research (CIR), ESS, Polytechnic of Porto, rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Could Electromyographic and Pressure Related Signals Identify Differences in Abdominal Activity and Postural Control between Women with and without C-Section?
Background: Scars interfere with the motor system; however, the influence of c-section scars has not been described yet. The aim of this study is to relate the presence of abdominal scars from a caesarean section with changes in postural control—stability and orientation and abdominal and lumbar neuromuscular control in the orthostatic position. Methods: Cross-sectional analytical observational study comparing healthy primiparous women with caesarean delivery (n = 9) and physiologic delivery (n = 12) who have delivered more than one year before. The relative electromyographic activity of the rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis/oblique internus and lumbar multifidus muscles, antagonist co-activation, the ellipse area, amplitude, displacement, velocity, standard deviation, and spectral power of the centre of pressure, and thoracic and lumbar curvatures, were evaluated in the standing position in both groups, through an electromyographic system, a pressure platform and spinal mouse system. In the “caesarean delivery” group, scar mobility was evaluated using a modified adheremeter. Results: Significant differences in CoP medial-lateral velocity and mean velocity were observed between groups (p < 0.050), while no significant differences were in the level of muscle activity, antagonist co-activation, and thoracic and lumbar curvatures (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The information provided by the pressure signal seems to identify postural impairments in women with c-sections.
Open AccessCould Electromyographic and Pressure Related Signals Identify Differences in Abdominal Activity and Postural Control between Women with and without C-Section?
Background: Scars interfere with the motor system; however, the influence of c-section scars has not been described yet. The aim of this study is to relate the presence of abdominal scars from a caesarean section with changes in postural control—stability and orientation and abdominal and lumbar neuromuscular control in the orthostatic position. Methods: Cross-sectional analytical observational study comparing healthy primiparous women with caesarean delivery (n = 9) and physiologic delivery (n = 12) who have delivered more than one year before. The relative electromyographic activity of the rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis/oblique internus and lumbar multifidus muscles, antagonist co-activation, the ellipse area, amplitude, displacement, velocity, standard deviation, and spectral power of the centre of pressure, and thoracic and lumbar curvatures, were evaluated in the standing position in both groups, through an electromyographic system, a pressure platform and spinal mouse system. In the “caesarean delivery” group, scar mobility was evaluated using a modified adheremeter. Results: Significant differences in CoP medial-lateral velocity and mean velocity were observed between groups (p < 0.050), while no significant differences were in the level of muscle activity, antagonist co-activation, and thoracic and lumbar curvatures (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The information provided by the pressure signal seems to identify postural impairments in women with c-sections.