Differences in countermovement jump landing characteristics and joint works across levels of perceived effort

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS

Journal of biomechanics Pub Date : 2025-03-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112645

Mia D. Hite, Anton J. Simms, Michael J. Stewart, Luke D. Chowning, John R. Harry

{"title":"Differences in countermovement jump landing characteristics and joint works across levels of perceived effort","authors":"Mia D. Hite, Anton J. Simms, Michael J. Stewart, Luke D. Chowning, John R. Harry","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The way in which different levels of effort affect countermovement jump (CMJ) landing characteristics and strategies remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in CMJ landing performance and related joint-level strategies across various levels of perceived effort. Twenty-four recreationally active individuals (12 Male: age = 23 ± 5 years, mass = 83.8 ± 14.5 kg, height = 1.8 ± 0.1 m; 12 Female: age = 23 ± 2 years, mass = 62.6 ± 12.0, height = 1.6 ± 0.1) performed five sets of three CMJs. Three-dimensional kinematic and ground reaction force (GRF) data were collected for each trial. Landing performance index (LPI), peak vGRF, and durations of the loading, attenuation, and control phases of the landing were obtained. Total lower body joint work (TW) as well as hip, knee and ankle contributions were calculated for 100 %, 75 %, 50 %, and 25 % perceived effort level for each phase of the landing. One-way repeated measures ANOVA tests (α = 0.05) were used to identify differences between each of the effort levels for all variables of interest. The best landing performances occurred during the 100 % condition, and while patterns in significant differences between levels of effort were not observed throughout all variables of interest, the TW during attenuation phase exhibited the most significant variability between levels of perceived effort. In addition, changes in the dependent variables did not coincide with proportional changes in level of effort. The results of the joint contributions suggest that levels of perceived effort may not stimulate desired changes in landing performance or joint mechanics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"184 ","pages":"Article 112645"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025001575","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The way in which different levels of effort affect countermovement jump (CMJ) landing characteristics and strategies remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in CMJ landing performance and related joint-level strategies across various levels of perceived effort. Twenty-four recreationally active individuals (12 Male: age = 23 ± 5 years, mass = 83.8 ± 14.5 kg, height = 1.8 ± 0.1 m; 12 Female: age = 23 ± 2 years, mass = 62.6 ± 12.0, height = 1.6 ± 0.1) performed five sets of three CMJs. Three-dimensional kinematic and ground reaction force (GRF) data were collected for each trial. Landing performance index (LPI), peak vGRF, and durations of the loading, attenuation, and control phases of the landing were obtained. Total lower body joint work (TW) as well as hip, knee and ankle contributions were calculated for 100 %, 75 %, 50 %, and 25 % perceived effort level for each phase of the landing. One-way repeated measures ANOVA tests (α = 0.05) were used to identify differences between each of the effort levels for all variables of interest. The best landing performances occurred during the 100 % condition, and while patterns in significant differences between levels of effort were not observed throughout all variables of interest, the TW during attenuation phase exhibited the most significant variability between levels of perceived effort. In addition, changes in the dependent variables did not coincide with proportional changes in level of effort. The results of the joint contributions suggest that levels of perceived effort may not stimulate desired changes in landing performance or joint mechanics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

跨感知努力水平的反动作跳跃落地特征和联合动作的差异

不同程度的努力对反身跳（CMJ）落地特征和策略的影响尚不清楚。本研究的目的是探讨CMJ着陆性能和相关关节水平策略在不同感知努力水平上的差异。娱乐活动个体24人(男性12人，年龄= 23±5岁，体重= 83.8±14.5 kg，身高= 1.8±0.1 m；12例女性：年龄= 23±2岁，体重= 62.6±12.0，身高= 1.6±0.1)行5组3组CMJs。每次试验均收集三维运动学和地面反作用力（GRF）数据。得到了着陆性能指数（LPI）、峰值vGRF、加载时间、衰减时间和着陆控制阶段。在着陆的每个阶段，计算100%、75%、50%和25%的感知努力水平下，总下肢关节功（TW）以及髋关节、膝关节和踝关节的贡献。采用单向重复测量方差分析检验（α = 0.05）来确定所有感兴趣变量的每个努力水平之间的差异。最佳着陆性能发生在100%状态下，虽然在所有感兴趣的变量中没有观察到不同努力水平之间的显著差异模式，但衰减阶段的TW在感知努力水平之间表现出最显著的差异。此外，因变量的变化与努力程度的比例变化并不一致。关节贡献的结果表明，感知的努力水平可能不会刺激着陆性能或关节力学的预期变化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

4.20%

发文量

345

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.