Mia D. Hite, Anton J. Simms, Michael J. Stewart, Luke D. Chowning, John R. Harry
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Differences in countermovement jump landing characteristics and joint works across levels of perceived effort
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.
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.