Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (4)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (4)
Schlagworte
- Athlete (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
- Detraining (1)
- Elite football (1)
- Heimtraining (1)
- Hometraining (1)
- Leistungsfähigkeit (1)
- Motor-cognitive (1)
- Performance (1)
- Professioneller Fußball (1)
- Sport (1)
- Testing (1)
- Training (1)
- agility (1)
- anticipation (1)
- injury prevention (1)
- integrative neuromotor training (1)
- non-contact injuries (1)
- open skill exercise (1)
- reactive coordination (1)
Institut
- Medizin (4)
- Sportwissenschaften (1)
Background: In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM).
Methods: Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements.
Findings: Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886–0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71–0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61–0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923–0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9–3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5–1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5–1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6–2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41–0.81).
Interpretation: Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.
Adapting movements rapidly to unanticipated external stimuli is paramount for athletic performance and to prevent injuries. We investigated the effects of a 4-week open-skill choice-reaction training intervention on unanticipated jump-landings. Physically active adults (n = 37; mean age 27, standard deviation 2.7 years, 16 females, 21 males) were randomly allocated to one of two interventions or a control group (CG). Participants in the two intervention groups performed a 4-week visuomotor open skill choice reaction training, one for the upper and one for the lower extremities. Before and after the intervention, two different types of countermovement jumps with landings in split stance position were performed. In the (1) pre-planned condition, we informed the participants regarding the landing position (left or right foot in front position) before the jump. In the (2) unanticipated condition, this information was displayed after take-off (350–600 ms reaction time before landing). Outcomes were landing stability [peak vertical ground reaction force (pGRF) and time to stabilization (TTS)], and landing-related decision-making quality (measured by the number of landing errors). To measure extremity-specific effects, we documented the number of correct hits during the trained drills. A two-factorial (four repeated measures: two conditions, two time factors; three groups) ANCOVA was carried out; conditions = unanticipated versus pre-planned condition, time factors = pre versus post measurement, grouping variable = intervention allocation, co-variates = jumping time and self-report arousal. The training improved performance over the intervention period (upper extremity group: mean of correct choice reaction hits during 5 s drill: +3.0 hits, 95% confidence interval: 2.2–3.9 hits; lower extremity group: +1.6 hits, 0.6–2.6 hits). For pGRF (F = 8.4, p < 0.001) and landing errors (F = 17.1, p < 0.001) repeated measures effect occurred. Significantly more landing errors occurred within the unanticipated condition for all groups and measurement days. The effect in pGRF is mostly impacted by between-condition differences in the CG. No between-group or interaction effect was seen for these outcomes: pGRF (F = 0.4, p = 0.9; F = 2.3, p = 0.1) landing errors (F = 0.5, p = 0.6; F = 2.3, p = 0.1). TTS displayed a repeated measures (F = 4.9, p < 0.001, worse values under the unanticipated condition, improvement over time) and an interaction effect (F = 2.4, p = 0.03). Healthy adults can improve their choice reaction task performance by training. As almost no transfer to unanticipated landing successfulness or movement quality occurred, the effect seems to be task-specific. Lower-extremity reactions to unanticipated stimuli may be improved by more specific training regimens.
Hintergrund: Die staatlichen Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung des Coronavirus SARS-CoV‑2 im Jahr 2020 brachten den Trainings- und Wettkampfbetrieb im professionellen Fußball in vielen Ländern zum zeitweiligen Erliegen. In Folge des Lockdowns waren die Trainingsmöglichkeiten zumeist auf unspezifische heimbasierte Trainingsmethoden begrenzt. Es ist unklar, ob sich die fehlenden sportspezifischen Belastungsreize negativ auf die physische Leistungsfähigkeit der Fußballspielenden auswirkten.
Methodik: Im Rahmen eines narrativen Reviews wurde mittels einer selektiven Literaturrecherche in den Datenbanken PubMed, Google Scholar und BISp-Surf nach Studien gesucht, welche die Auswirkungen des Lockdowns auf physische Leistungsparameter bei erwachsenen professionellen Fußballspielenden untersuchten.
Ergebnisse: In die Übersichtsarbeit wurden sechs prospektive Längsschnittstudien eingeschlossen. In allen Studien kam während der Quarantäne ein heimbasiertes Ersatztraining zum Einsatz. Vier Studien verglichen die Leistungsfähigkeit der Fußballer/-innen mit Leistungsdaten aus vorherigen Spielzeiten. Zwei Studien ermittelten die Leistungsfähigkeit der Sportler/-innen unmittelbar vor und nach der Lockdownperiode.
Diskussion: Während die allgemeine Kraft- und Ausdauerleistung durch heimbasierte Ersatztrainingsprogramme erhalten werden kann, weisen die Studien darauf hin, dass sich die fehlenden spezifischen Belastungsreize vor allem negativ auf die Schnelligkeits- und Schnellkraftleistung der Fußballspielenden auswirken könnten. Bei Rückkehr in den regulären Trainingsbetrieb sollte daher auf eine progressive Belastungssteuerung insbesondere im Schnelligkeitstraining geachtet werden, um das Risiko für Verletzungen zu senken.
Background/Objectives: Agility and cognitive abilities are typically assessed separately by different motor and cognitive tests. While many agility tests lack a reactive decision-making component, cognitive assessments are still mainly based on computer-based or paper-pencil tests with low ecological validity. This study is the first to validate the novel SKILLCOURT technology as an integrated assessment tool for agility and cognitive-motor performance.
Methods: Thirty-two healthy adults performed agility (Star Run), reactive agility (Random Star Run) and cognitive-motor (executive function test, 1-back decision making) performance assessments on the SKILLCOURT. Cognitive-motor tests included lower limb responses in a standing position to increase the ecological validity when compared to computer-based tests. Test results were compared to established motor and agility tests (countermovement jump, 10 m linear sprint, T-agility tests) as well as computer-based cognitive assessments (choice-reaction, Go-NoGo, task switching, memory span). Correlation and multiple regression analyses quantified the relation between SKILLCOURT performance and motor and cognitive outcomes.
Results: Star Run and Random Star Run tests were best predicted by linear sprint (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and T-agility performance (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), respectively. The executive function test performance was well explained by computer-based assessments on choice reaction speed and cognitive flexibility (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The 1-back test on the SKILLCOURT revealed moderate but significant correlations with the computer-based assessments (r = 0.47, p = 0.007).
Conclusion: The results support the validity of the SKILLCOURT technology for agility and cognitive assessments in more ecologically valid cognitive-motor tasks. This technology provides a promising alternative to existing performance assessment tools.