Table 2 Methodological details and main findings of studies that examined the influence of hip and knee joint angle on muscle activities of the hamstrings during hip extension tests (hip neutral position = 0° in prone, unless stated otherwise, knee full extension = 0°)
| Â | Participants | Normalization | Contraction | Angular position differences in EMG | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | (n, Sex) | EMG Type | (hip, knee angle) | (angular velocity, °/s) | Hip (°) | Knee (°) | BFlh | ST | SM |
Hip angle effects | |||||||||
Worrell et al. [130] | 50 (25F, 25Â M) | S | Max at any angle | ISOM | 0, 30, 60, 90 | 90 | Â | NS | Â |
Glaviano and Bazett-Jones [135] | 22F | S | MVC | ISOM | 0, 45, 90 | 0 | NS | 90 < 0, 45 |  |
Coratella et al. [136] | 10 M bodybuilders | S | MVC (0, 0) | Romanian, Step-Romanian, Stiff-leg deadlifts |  |  | Ascending > Descending phase | Ascending > Descending phase |  |
Knee angle effects | |||||||||
Kwon and Lee [137] | 20 M & F | S | MVC (-20) | ISOM | 0 | 0, 30, 60, 90, 110 | 110 < 0 | 110 < 0 |  |
Hahn [138] | 18 M | S | MVC at each angle | ISOM leg press | Flexed | 30–100, every 10° | 60–100 < 30–50 |  |  |
Kim and Park [139] | 22 M | S | Raw | ISOM bridge |  | 0, 60, 90, 120 |  | 60, 90, 120 < 0 120 < 60 |  |
Lehecka et al. [140] | 18 (16F, 12 M) | S | MVC (0, 45) | ISOM bridge |  | 90, 135 | 135 < 90 |  |  |
Sakamoto et al. [141] | 31 (16 M, 15 M) | S | MMT (0, 90) | ISOM |  | 0, 90 |  | 90 < 0 |  |
Oh and Lim [142] | 32 (14F, 18 M) | S | MMT (0, 60) | ISOM |  | H60K0 > H0K60 | H60K0 > H0K60 | H60K0 > H0K60 | H0K60 vs H60K0 |