Effects of injury proneness and task difficulty on joint kinetic variability

James, C. Roger; Dufek, Janet S.; Bates, Barry T.

doi:10.1097/00005768-200011000-00004

Cited by 62 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2002), together with the results presented by James et al (2000), have demonstrated a potential relationship between coordination variability and overuse injury. As many authors have highlighted, more work is required to determine whether the decreased variability seen in injured participants is the cause or the effect of the injury.…”

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Schöner et al, 1986) is that variability in movement is necessary for changes in the coordination of movement, for example from walking to running or vice versa (Diedrich and Warren, 1995). As well as assisting in coordination changes, various authors have postulated recently that another function of movement variability might be to attenuate impact shocks when runners are subjected to large forces (Holt et al, 1995;Hamill et al, 1999;Heiderscheit et al, 1999;James et al, 2000;Heiderscheit et al, 2002;James, 2004). These authors suggested that variability in movement might provide a broader distribution of stresses among different tissues, potentially reducing the cumulative load on internal structures of the body.…”

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors suggested that variability in movement might provide a broader distribution of stresses among different tissues, potentially reducing the cumulative load on internal structures of the body. Furthermore, James (2004) some experimental evidence exists James et al, 2000;Heiderscheit et al, 2002). Because of the potential functional roles of movement variability, it would appear that there is a need to re-assess the solely negative views of variability.…”

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists?

Bartlett

Wheat

Robins

2007

Sports Biomechanics

369

289

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variability In Basketball Shootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists?

Bartlett

Wheat

Robins

2007

Sports Biomechanics

369

289

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…22 These excessive landing forces, if inadequately absorbed, may be an important factor in ACL injury. 27 Knee and hip angle during landing are important determinants of forces at the knee; small flexion angles produce high-impact forces. 6,25,31 Devita and Skelly 12 evaluated ground reaction forces in soft and stiff landings (greater and lesser than 90°of knee flexion, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Comparison of Hip Muscle Activity During Single-Leg Landing

Zazulak¹,

Ponce²,

Straub³

et al. 2005

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Objectives: To determine whether gender differences in electromyographic (EMG) activity of hip-stabilizing muscles are present during single-leg landing. Background: Numerous factors may explain the greater rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in female athletes. However, gender differences in hip muscle activity during dynamic events have not been well characterized. Methods and Measures: Twenty-two Division I collegiate athletes (13 female, 9 male) performed drop landings from 30.5-and 45.8-cm heights. Surface EMG was used to examine relative muscle activity from 200 milliseconds prior to initial contact to 250 milliseconds postcontact. Peak and mean values for each muscle (gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, rectus femoris) in each time epoch were analyzed using 2 × 2 (group by height) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine significance. Results: Females demonstrated lower gluteus maximus peak (mean ± SD, 69.5 ± 30.2 versus 98.0 ± 33.4 percent maximum voluntary contraction [%MVIC]; P = .019) and mean (mean ± SD, 37.5 ± 15.6 versus 53.9 ± 18.0 %MVIC; P = .018) muscle activation during the postcontact phase of landing than males. Furthermore, females demonstrated greater peak rectus femoris activity during the precontact phase (mean ± SD, 33.6 ± 18.5 versus 18.7 ± 8.2 %MVIC; P = .029). A positive effect of drop height on relative activity of all muscles was observed during both phases (P Ͻ .05). Conclusions: Females utilize different muscular activation patterns compared to males (ie, decreased gluteus maximus and increased rectus femoris muscle activity) during landing maneuvers. Decreased hip muscle activity and increased quadriceps activity may be important contributors to the increased susceptibility of female athletes to noncontact ACL injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005;35:292-299.

show abstract

“…Research in this area has yet to provide a clear indication on the specific directionality of such functional effects, with reports of both positive and negative relationships between variability and performance or health (Bradshaw et al, 2007;Button et al, 2003;Crowther et al, 2008;James et al, 2000). It appears that the effect of variability may result from a complex interaction between the form of variability (e.g., coordination variability, intertrial variability, measurement variability, etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematic Variability in Running: A Caution Regarding Use of the Spanning Set Measure

Hanlon

Kearney

Condell

2012

Journal of Applied Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spanning set technique quantifies intertrial variability as the span between polynomial curves representing upper and lower standard deviation curves of a repeated movement. This study aimed to assess the validity of the spanning set technique in quantifying variability and specifically to determine its sensitivity to variability presented at different phases of a movement cycle. Knee angle data were recorded from a male participant completing 12 overground running trials. Variability was added to each running trial at five different phases of the running stride. Ten variability magnitudes were also used to assess the effect of variability magnitude on the spanning set measure. Variability was quantified in all trials using mean deviation and the spanning set measure. Results of a repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences between the spanning set score for trials using different phases of added variability. In contrast, mean deviation values showed no difference related to the phase of added variability. Therefore, the spanning set technique cannot be recommended as a valid measure of intertrial movement variability.

show abstract

Effects of injury proneness and task difficulty on joint kinetic variability

Cited by 62 publications

References 15 publications

Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists?

Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists?

Gender Comparison of Hip Muscle Activity During Single-Leg Landing

Kinematic Variability in Running: A Caution Regarding Use of the Spanning Set Measure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About