Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- cognition (2)
- ACL rupture (1)
- Athletes (1)
- COINS (1)
- Injury (1)
- Integrated multimodal training (1)
- Jumping (1)
- Neurocognition (1)
- athletes (1)
- brain function (1)
Institute
Perceptual-cognitive function and unplanned athletic movement task performance: a systematic review
(2020)
The performance of choice-reaction tasks during athletic movement has been demonstrated to evoke unfavorable biomechanics in the lower limb. However, the mechanism of this observation is unknown. We conducted a systematic review examining the association between (1) the biomechanical and functional safety of unplanned sports-related movements (e.g., jumps/runs with a spontaneously indicated landing leg/cutting direction) and (2) markers of perceptual–cognitive function (PCF). A literature search in three databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar) identified five relevant articles. The study quality, rated by means of a modified Downs and Black checklist, was moderate to high (average: 13/16 points). Four of five papers, in at least one parameter, found either an association of PCF with task safety or significantly reduced task safety in low vs. high PCF performers. However, as (a) the outcomes, populations and statistical methods of the included trials were highly heterogeneous and (b) only two out of five studies had an adequate control condition (pre-planned movement task), the evidence was classified as conflicting. In summary, PCF may represent a factor affecting injury risk and performance during unplanned sports-related movements, but future research strengthening the evidence for this association is warranted.
Introduction Current: evidence suggests that the loss of mechanoreceptors after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears might be compensated by increased cortical motor planning. This occupation of cerebral resources may limit the potential to quickly adapt movements to unforeseen external stimuli in the athletic environment. To date, studies investigating such neural alterations during movement focused on simple, anticipated tasks with low ecological validity. This trial, therefore, aims to investigate the cortical and biomechanical processes associated with more sport-related and injury-related movements in ACL-reconstructed individuals.
Methods and analysis: ACL-reconstructed participants and uninjured controls will perform repetitive countermovement jumps with single leg landings. Two different conditions are to be completed: anticipated (n=35) versus unanticipated (n=35) successful landings. Under the anticipated condition, participants receive the visual information depicting the requested landing leg prior to the jump. In the unanticipated condition, this information will be provided only about 400 msec prior to landing. Neural correlates of motor planning will be measured using electroencephalography. In detail, movement-related cortical potentials, frequency spectral power and functional connectivity will be assessed. Biomechanical landing quality will be captured via a capacitive force plate. Calculated parameters encompass time to stabilisation, vertical peak ground reaction force, and centre of pressure path length. Potential systematic differences between ACL-reconstructed individuals and controls will be identified in dependence of jumping condition (anticipated/ unanticipated, injured/uninjured leg and controls) by using interference statistics. Potential associations between the cortical and biomechanical measures will be calculated by means of correlation analysis. In case of statistical significance (α<0.05.) further confounders (cofactors) will be considered.
Ethics and dissemination: The independent Ethics Committee of the University of Frankfurt (Faculty of Psychology and Sports Sciences) approved the study. Publications in peer-reviewed journals are planned. The findings will be presented at scientific conferences.
Trial status: At the time of submission of this manuscript, recruitment is ongoing.
Trial registration number: NCT03336060; Pre-results.
Failed jump landings represent a key mechanism of musculoskeletal trauma. It has been speculated that cognitive dual-task loading during the flight phase may moderate the injury risk. This study aimed to explore whether increased visual distraction can compromise landing biomechanics. Twenty-one healthy, physically active participants (15 females, 25.8 ± 0.4 years) completed a series of 30 counter-movement jumps (CMJ) onto a capacitive pressure platform. In addition to safely landing on one leg, they were required to memorize either one, two or three jersey numbers shown during the flight phase (randomly selected and equally balanced over all jumps). Outcomes included the number of recall errors as well as landing errors and three variables of landing kinetics (time to stabilization/TTS, peak ground reaction force/pGRF, length of the centre of pressure trace/COPT). Differences between the conditions were calculated using the Friedman test and the post hoc Bonferroni-Holm corrected Wilcoxon test. Regardless of the condition, landing errors remained unchanged (p = .46). In contrast, increased visual distraction resulted in a higher number of recall errors (chi² = 13.3, p = .001). Higher cognitive loading, furthermore, appeared to negatively impact mediolateral COPT (p < .05). Time to stabilization (p = .84) and pGRF (p = .78) were unaffected. A simple visual distraction in a controlled experimental setting is sufficient to adversely affect landing stability and task-related short-term memory during CMJ. The ability to precisely perceive the environment during movement under time constraints may, hence, represent a new injury risk factor and should be investigated in a prospective trial.
Background: We aimed to investigate the potential effects of a 4-week motor–cognitive dual-task training on cognitive and motor function as well as exercise motivation in young, healthy, and active adults.
Methods: A total of 26 participants (age 25 ± 2 years; 10 women) were randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a control group. The intervention group performed a motor–cognitive training (3×/week), while the participants of the control group received no intervention. Before and after the intervention period of 4 weeks, all participants underwent cognitive (d2-test, Trail Making Test) and motor (lower-body choice reaction test and time to stabilization test) assessments. Following each of the 12 workouts, self-reported assessments (rating of perceived exertion, enjoyment and pleasant anticipation of the next training session) were done. Analyses of covariances and 95% confidence intervals plotting for between group and time effects were performed.
Results: Data from 24 participants were analysed. No pre- to post-intervention improvement nor a between-group difference regarding motor outcomes (choice-reaction: F = 0.5; time to stabilization test: F = 0.7; p > 0.05) occurred. No significant training-induced changes were found in the cognitive tests (D2: F = 0.02; Trail Making Test A: F = 0.24; Trail Making Test B: F = 0.002; p > 0.05). Both enjoyment and anticipation of the next workout were rated as high.
Discussion: The neuro-motor training appears to have no significant effects on motor and cognitive function in healthy, young and physically active adults. This might be explained in part by the participants’ very high motor and cognitive abilities, the comparably low training intensity or the programme duration. The high degree of exercise enjoyment, however, may qualify the training as a facilitator to initiate and maintain regular physical activity. The moderate to vigorous intensity levels further point towards potential health-enhancing cardiorespiratory effects.