مطالب

Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is caused by sensitive spot in muscles that are known as trigger points (TPs) which can have complications that can affect person's quality of life. Massage and self-myofascial-release (SMR) are two non-invasive techniques which are used to reduce the side effects of TPs. Aim: The present study is intending to compare the effect of the two mentioned techniques in reducing complications caused by TPs such as reduced ROM and pain in women with MPS of the trapezius muscle. Materials and Methods: 45 women aged 20-25 years with active TPs in the trapezius muscle were randomly divided into two experimental groups and one control group. The research process was one week which consists of pretest, 5 days intervention and post-test. The variables included pain measured by OBER questionnaire and ROM of neck measured by goniometer. Results: The results of the study showed that massage can have a significant effect on the ROM of neck including neck flexion (P= 0.00), extension (P= 0.00), left (P= 0.00) and right (P= 0.004) lateral flexion and left (P=0.00) and right (P= 0.04) rotation (P<0.05). Both massage and SMR interventions had a significant effect on reducing pain measured by OBER questionnaire (P<0.05). Conclusion: Findings of this study showed that myofascial release massage can have better effects on increasing neck ROM. Both treatment modalities are useful in reducing pain. Based on the obtained results, we recommend that specialists use massage intervention instead of myofascial self-release (SMR) for individuals suffering from MPS and neck pain, in order to achieve quicker and more extensive results.

Background: In recent years, the examination of the impact of various types of different exercises as the key influential components on balance has gained considerable popularity. Numerous studies have investigated the effects of diverse exercise modalities on the enhancement of balance abilities. Aim: The aim of this research was to compare the effects of different types of learning (explicit and implicit) on the balance of elderly individuals. Materials and Methods: Forty-two elderly participants (both women and men), after initial health assessments and medical history reviews, voluntarily participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to three groups: explicit learning group (14 participants), implicit learning group (14 participants), and control group (14 participants). Before the implementation of the targeted learning exercises, the static balance of the participants was assessed using the Flamingo Test, and dynamic balance was measured using the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. After two sessions of learning exercises, the participants were reassessed. Statistical analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (ANCOVA and Shapiro-Wilk test) at a significance level of P<0.05. Results: The findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups in the pre-test, but after performing the learning exercises, the static balance of the implicit learning group showed a statistically significant improvement compared to the explicit learning group and the control group. However, there was no significant increase in dynamic balance performance in any of the groups. Conclusion: The results of this study support the claim that implicit learning exercises can have a positive and significant impact on the static balance performance of elderly individuals. It was also shown that implicit cognitive training had no effect on dynamic balance, which may indicate the important role of other variables such as motor control abilities.

“You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men!” (The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin) Contemporary discussions on freedom have recently drawn attention to the implications of the mind-body relation. Historically, the notion of freedom has centered on various naturalistic options, compatibilism, and weaker notions of libertarian freedom. This leaves strong agent-causal libertarianism as a minority position. Entering these discussions, we seek to establish the relation between a particular mind-body view and strong agent-causal libertarianism. We make two claims upon characterizing strong agent-causal libertarianism. First, we argue that strong agent-causal libertarianism requires some version of substance dualism (or immaterialist agency). Second, we argue that strong agent-causal libertarianism probably requires something like classical or Cartesian substance dualism. Drawing from the philosopher John Foster in The Immaterial Self, we show that the central defining feature of the sort of libertarian agency under investigation is ‘intrinsic autonomy’. While we recognize that Cartesianism is unpopular in contemporary discussions, we agree with Foster that it is probably what is entailed if we are going to ground something like a strong agent-causal libertarianism. The substance needed to explain this robust form of freedom begins to look like something not of this world and more like the substance described early on by Rene Descartes.

How does unconscious matter become conscious? How does our physical part, which lacks consciousness, have such a subjective quality? This is the explanatory gap in the problem of consciousness or the hard problem of consciousness which comes from a physicalist (eliminativist physicalism) point of view. From the opposite point of view, that is, dualism, the mind-body problem has led to the problem of consciousness and the explanation of how our unconscious physical (matter) part (substance) is related to our conscious mental part (substance). If the problem of consciousness is the result of such views (eliminativism and dualism), is it possible to adopt a different perspective so that the problem does not arise at all? Or find a solution for it (maximum answer) or at least determine the right way to solve the problem (minimum answer)? The current research goes into this issue by adopting subjectivism and holism to make its subjective holism theory. Therefore, it gives a positive (maximum and minimum) answer to the above questions.