Electromyographic analysis regarding tension of selected masticatory and dorsal muscles at rest and during activities burdening the stomatognathic system in saxophonists

Sequence	x̄ ± SD		Max–Min			Q ₂₅		Me		Q ₇₅
Phase 1	86.38 ± 70.32		257.73–10.29			34.55		69.50		118.74
Phase 2	120.54 ± 106.53		435.65–13.41			42.90		75.36		148.11
Phase 3	317.45 ± 200.56		872.07–43.48			174.19		250.53		369.41
Phase 4	414.23 ± 214.52		978.33–171.47			265.26		332.30		576.21
Phase 5	449.22 ± 261.00		983.00–132.79			263.68		335.40		598.89
Phase 6	168.24 ± 90.40		376.52–21.04			89.88		180.61		206.72
	Friedman ANOVA test and Kendall’s coefficient of agreement:
	Chi-square ANOVA (n = 30; df = 5) F = 116.09; p < 0.001*
	Absolute differences between rank sums are significant (approximately) if > 42.5350813285625 at a significance level of α = 0.05
Dunn’s post hoc test	Phase 1	Phase 2		Phase 3	Phase 4		Phase 5		Phase 6
Phase 1	—	34		90.5	114.5		123.5		42.5
Phase 2	34	—		56.5	80.5		89.5		8.5
Phase 3	90.5	56.5		—	24		33		48
Phase 4	114.5	80.5		24	—		9		72
Phase 5	123.5	89.5		33	9		—		81
Phase 6	42.5	8.5		48	72		81		—

Values meeting the condition for significant differences between rank sums are bolded.

*p < 0.05.

Table 2

Comparison of maximal amplitude of left-sided masseter muscle contractions in consecutive test sequences

Sequence	x̄ ± SD		Max–Min			Q ₂₅		Me		Q ₇₅
Phase 1	99.08 ± 88.08		302.76–16.93			33.49		62.40		120.87
Phase 2	139.46 ± 157.20		679.08–17.23			44.64		71.32		196.30
Phase 3	337.37 ± 210.08		853.07–22.82			178.55		275.57		436.87
Phase 4	434.70 ± 218.06		1003.05–168.05			280.56		359.04		591.86
Phase 5	482.95 ± 307.91		1234.60–178.48			269.23		344.46		597.01
Phase 6	184.50 ± 97.85		355.20–29.36			102.22		162.62		281.68
	Friedman ANOVA test and Kendall’s coefficient of agreement:
	Chi-square ANOVA (n = 30; df = 5) F = 107.55; p < 0.001*
	Absolute differences between rank sums are significant (approximately) if > 42.5350813285625 at a significance level of α = 0.05
Dunn’s post hoc test	Phase 1	Phase 2		Phase 3	Phase 4		Phase 5		Phase 6
Phase 1	—	28		83.5	115.5		112.5		41.5
Phase 2	28	—		55.5	87.5		84.5		13.5
Phase 3	83.5	55.5		—	32		29		42
Phase 4	115.5	87.5		32	—		3		74
Phase 5	112.5	84.5		29	3		—		71
Phase 6	41.5	13.5		42	74		71		—

Values meeting condition for significant differences between rank sums are bolded.

*p < 0.05.

Table 3

Comparison of maximal amplitude of right-sided descending part of the trapezius muscle contractions in consecutive test sequences

Sequence	x̄ ± SD		Max–Min			Q ₂₅		Me		Q ₇₅
Phase 1	90.63 ± 37.75		144.83–18.38			62.90		83.24		132.10
Phase 2	113.87 ± 49.06		239.62–28.07			71.12		115.46		152.45
Phase 3	161.79 ± 58.21		326.08–83.81			122.42		154.93		176.52
Phase 4	205.60 ± 142.86		898.32–97.99			141.93		167.96		223.82
Phase 5	246.26 ± 154.01		908.45–16.93			177.75		206.96		283.97
Phase 6	106.47 ± 56.74		270.45–18.03			75.49		103.57		131.22
	Friedman ANOVA test and Kendall’s coefficient of agreement:Chi-square ANOVA (n = 30; df = 5) F = 102.65; p < 0.001*Absolute differences between rank sums are significant (approximately) if > > 42.5350813285625 at a significance level of α = 0.05
Dunn’s post hoc test	Phase 1	Phase 2		Phase 3	Phase 4		Phase 5		Phase 6
Phase 1	—	39		81	94		122		24
Phase 2	39	—		42	55		83		15
Phase 3	81	42		—	13		41		57
Phase 4	94	55		13	—		28		70
Phase 5	122	83		41	28		—		98
Phase 6	24	15		57	70		98		—

Values meeting condition for significant differences between rank sums are bolded.

*p < 0.05.

Table 4

Comparison of maximal amplitude of left-sided descending part of the trapezius muscle contractions in consecutive test sequences

Sequence	x̄ ± SD		Max–Min			Q₂₅		Me		Q₇₅
Phase 1	94.96 ± 39.85		152.18–23.06			63.76		87.80		138.23
Phase 2	127.09 ± 63.57		250.17–39.29			72.59		125.07		169.03
Phase 3	188.62 ± 83.34		368.44–60.38			128.58		179.68		228.67
Phase 4	227.81 ± 172.42		1002.15–102.34			143.10		157.93		255.97
Phase 5	264.72 ± 187.77		1109.45–29.75			175.75		223.02		289.66
Phase 6	113.85 ± 60.00		269.68–17.23			69.64		105.77		149.00
	Friedman ANOVA test and Kendall’s coefficient of agreement:Chi-square ANOVA (n = 30; df = 5) F = 101.56; p < 0.001*Absolute differences between rank sums are significant (approximately) if > > 42.5350813285625 at a significance level of α = 0.05
Dunn’s post hoc test	Phase 1	Phase 2		Phase 3	Phase 4		Phase 5		Phase 6
Phase 1	—	42		86	91.5		119.5		21
Phase 2	42	—		44	49.5		77.5		21
Phase 3	86	44		—	5,5		33.5		65
Phase 4	91.5	49		5.5	—		28		70.5
Phase 5	119.5	77.5		33.5	28		—		98.5
Phase 6	21	21		65	70.5		98.5		—

Values meeting condition for significant differences between rank sums are bolded.

*p < 0.05.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37190/abb/220467 | Journal eISSN: 2450-6303 | Journal ISSN: 1509-409X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 1 - 10

Submitted on: Mar 19, 2026

Accepted on: Apr 8, 2026

Published on: Sep 21, 2026

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

Masseters,

Maximal amplitude of muscle contractions,

Saxophone,

Selective muscle activation,

Surface EMG,

Trapezius muscle

Related subjects:

Engineering,

Bioengineering and biomedical engineering,

Cellular and tissue engineering,

Biomechanics,

Medicine,

Biomedical engineering,

Materials sciences,

Biomaterials and natural materials

© 2026 Danuta Smolag, Ewa Puszczalowska-Lizis, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 28 (2026): Issue 1 (March 2026)

Electromyographic analysis regarding tension of selected masticatory and dorsal muscles at rest and during activities burdening the stomatognathic system in saxophonists

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Paradigm

My account