The effect of the stability threshold on time to stabilization and its reliability following a single leg drop jump landing

Fransz, Duncan P.; Huurnink, Arnold; Boode, Vosse A. de; Kingma, Idsart; Dieën, Jaap H. van

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.048

Cited by 17 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A longer TTS indicates more difficulty in controlling posture at landing and might indicate impaired neuromuscular or postural control 13 ) . The FSD task for detecting TTS consisted of a single landing step from a height of 20 cm onto the force platform 14 ) . The initial position of the participant was with both bare feet on the step facing the force plate.…”

Section: Participants and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic postural control during step down task in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Purpose] This study aimed to examine the differences in dynamic postural control during forward step down (FSD) task in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). [Participants and Methods] Sixty-eight participants (34 males and 34 females) were divided into the following 2 groups: 34 PFPS patients (17 males and 17 females) and 34 healthy controls (17 males and 17 females). Each participant performed FSD task from a height of 20 cm. A force platform was used to extract the center of pressure parameters during FSD task for calculation of time to stabilization (TTS) in the anterior-posterior (A/P) and medial-lateral (M/L) direction. [Results] PFPS group took longer time to stabilize than the healthy control group in A/P and M/L directions. A main effect for direction was found, and this indicated that the A/P TTS of 8.43 ± 0.79s was longer than the M/L TTS of 5.56 ± 1.95s in healthy participants and A/P TTS of 9.09 ± 0.82s was longer than the M/L TTS of 7.15 ± 2.11s in PFPS. [Conclusion] These findings suggest that dynamic postural control can be affected in PFPS patients.

show abstract

Section: Participants and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic postural control during step down task in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The TTS aims to quantify the transition from an instable situation to a stable situation. Large differences exist in TTS calculation methods, therefore studies should be interpreted and compared with caution [10,11]. Calculation of the DPSI is straightforward and quantifies the fluctuation of the resultant ground reaction forces (GRF) around the origin (mean value) for 3 s following impact [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This resulted in large variation in outcome values (0.5-6 s) and low correlations between calculation methods applied to the same measurement [10,11]. Therefore, distinct information may be available within the dynamic phases as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time series of ground reaction forces following a single leg drop jump landing in elite youth soccer players consist of four distinct phases

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe single leg drop jump landing test may assess dynamic and static balance abilities in different phases of the landing. However objective definitions of different phases following landing and associated reliability are lacking.Therefore, we determined the existence of possible distinct phases of single leg drop jump landing on a force plate in 82 elite youth soccer players. Three outcome measures were calculated over moving windows of five sizes: center of pressure (COP) speed, COP sway and horizontal ground reaction force (GRF).Per outcome measure, a Factor Analysis was employed with all windows as input variables. It showed that four factors (patterns of variance) largely (>75%) explained the variance across subjects/trials along the 12 s time series. Each factor was highly associated with a distinct phase of the time series signal: dynamic (0.4-2.7 s), late dynamic (2.5-5.0 s), static 1 (5.0-8.3 s) and static 2 (8.1-11.7 s).Intra-class correlations (ICC) between trials were lower for the dynamic phases (0.45-0.68) than for the static phases (0.60-0.86). The COP speed showed higher ICC's (0.63-0.86) than COP sway (0.45-0.61) and GRF (0.57-0.71) for all four phases.In conclusion, following a drop jump landing unique information is available in four distinct phases. The COP speed is most reliable, with higher reliability in the static phases compared to the dynamic phases. Future studies should assess the sensitivity of information from dynamic, late dynamic and static phases.

show abstract

“…Additionally, while the present results are most likely generalizable to other jump landing protocols, a jump in another direction will significantly change any of the direction specific parameters [26]. Furthermore, differences in TTS calculation methods can have important effects on TTS outcome values [35]. Therefore, the present findings might not be generalizable to other TTS calculation methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces: A methodological study

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Time to stabilization (TTS) and dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) are outcome measures based on ground reaction force (GRF) that are often used to quantify dynamic postural stability performance following a drop jump landing. However, their interrelations, as well as the overlap with other dynamic measures and static single-leg postural sway, are unknown. Research question: What is the relation among TTS and DPSI, how are they related to impact forces and dynamic postural sway, and how are all these dynamic measures related to static postural sway? Methods: A sample of 190 elite soccer players performed four single-leg drop jump landings. TTS in three directions (vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral), and DPSI were intercorrelated (Pearson's r), and related to impact forces and the magnitude of horizontal GRF (HGRF) from 0.4 to 2.4 s and 3.0-5.0 s following landing. All these measures were also correlated to HGRF in the static phase (i.e., 5.3-11.7 s). Results: The TTS measures were significantly interrelated (r = 0.28-0.53), but were not significantly correlated to DPSI. TTS was more strongly related to HGRF0.4-2.4 s (r = 0.54-0.75) than to HGRF3.0-5.0 s (r = 0.32-0.54) or impact forces (r=-0.28-0.36). Vertical TTS was not significantly related to impact forces. The DPSI was most strongly related to the vertical peak force (r = 0.85), and was not significantly related to HGRF of the dynamic periods. Furthermore, TTS and dynamic HGRF were significantly related to static HGRF (r = 0.34-0.80), while DPSI and impact forces were not. Significance: TTS and DPSI do not represent similar aspects of single-leg jump landing performance. The ability to stabilize posture seems to be represented by TTS and dynamic postural sway, which partly overlaps with static postural sway. In contrast, DPSI and vertical peak force mainly reflect the kinetic energy absorption during impact. The findings can help to better understand the meaning of the outcome measures, and to translate results to rehabilitation or prevention programs.

show abstract

The effect of the stability threshold on time to stabilization and its reliability following a single leg drop jump landing

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

Dynamic postural control during step down task in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome

Dynamic postural control during step down task in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome

Time series of ground reaction forces following a single leg drop jump landing in elite youth soccer players consist of four distinct phases

The assessment of single-leg drop jump landing performance by means of ground reaction forces: A methodological study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About