Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items for :

  • "force platform" x
  • User-accessible content x
Clear All
Open access

Gemma N. Parry, Lee C. Herrington and Ian G. Horsley

Context: Muscular power output of the upper limb is a key aspect of athletic and sporting performance. Maximal power describes the ability to immediately produce power with maximal velocity at the point of release, impact, or takeoff, with research highlighting that the greater an athlete’s ability to produce maximal power, the greater the improvement in athletic performance. Despite the importance of upper-limb power for athletic performance, there is presently no gold-standard test for upper-limb force development performance. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the test–retest reliability of force plate–derived measures of the countermovement push-up in active males. Design: Test–retest design. Setting: Controlled laboratory. Participants: Physically active college athletes (age 24 [3] y, height 1.79 [0.08] m, body mass 81.7 [9.9] kg). Intervention: Subjects performed 3 repetitions of maximal effort countermovement push-up trials on Kistler force plates on 2 separate test occasions 7 days apart. Main Outcome Measures: Peak force, mean force, flight time, rate of force development, and impulse were analyzed from the force–time curve. Results: No significant differences between the 2 trial occasions were observed for any of the derived performance measures. Intraclass correlation coefficient and within-subject coefficient of variation calculations indicated performance measures to have moderate to very high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = .88–.98), coefficient of variation = 5.5%–14.1%). Smallest detectable difference for peak force (7.5%), mean force (8.6%), and rate of force development (11.2%) were small to moderate. Conclusion: Force platform–derived kinetic parameters of countermovement push-up are reliable measurements of power in college-level athletes.

Full access

Joseph Hamill

collect and analyze kinematic data, but kinetic data were different because few laboratories had force platforms. Professor Roger Enoka of the University of Colorado, in his recent Borelli Lecture at the American Society of Biomechanics meeting, suggested that only about 10 laboratories in the United

Open access

Seiichiro Takei, Kuniaki Hirayama and Junichi Okada

previously described. 6 – 10 , 15 Briefly, (1) the subjects stood still on a force platform while holding the bar at their upper thigh, (2) moved the bar down to the upper part of their knees, (3) pulled the bar drastically upward with countermovement, and (4) then lowered themselves into a quarter

Open access

Brad W. Willis, Katie Hocker, Swithin Razu, Aaron D. Gray, Marjorie Skubic, Seth L. Sherman, Samantha Kurkowski and Trent M. Guess

conjunction with force platforms has long been the “gold standard” for determining kinematic and kinetic biomechanical parameters. 3 , 4 Altered lower-extremity kinematic and kinetic parameters demonstrated by females during dynamic jumping tasks have been extensively investigated to assess potential

Open access

Ryan Morrison, Kyle M. Petit, Chris Kuenze, Ryan N. Moran and Tracey Covassin

plate. 7 Although use of a force plate is the preferred method, its high cost and technical demands make it impractical for many clinicians. 7 This has led to the development of low-cost alternatives similar to that of research-grade force platforms. The Balance Tracking System (BTrackS) is a portable

Open access

Yuko Kuramatsu, Yuji Yamamoto and Shin-Ichi Izumi

flexed at approximately 100°. The position of the buttocks on the seat and the position of each foot on the force platform were marked with tape, and prior to each trial, each participant’s starting position was adjusted to be in alignment with these marks. Participants were instructed to hang their arms

Full access

Michael Wälchli, Jan Ruffieux,, Audrey Mouthon, Martin Keller and Wolfgang Taube

for participants of the CON groups. Balance Tests on the Force Plate Center of pressure (COP) measurements on the force plate (508 × 464 mm; OR6-7 Force Platform; Advanced Mechanical Technology Inc, Watertown, MA), which have previously been shown to be reliable in analyzing balancing abilities ( 24

Open access

John D. McCamley, Eric L. Cutler, Kendra K. Schmid, Shane R. Wurdeman, Jason M. Johanning, Iraklis I. Pipinos and Sara A. Myers

modified Helen Hayes marker set arrangement. 26 Lower extremity kinetics were collected, at a rate of 600 Hz, using a Kistler piezoelectric force platform (Kistler North America, Amherst, NY) mounted flush with the surface of the floor. Lower extremity kinematics were collected at a rate of 60 Hz using a

Open access

Erik A. Wikstrom, Cole Mueller and Mary Spencer Cain

fatigue 31 A return to normal strength 27 90% of uninjured limb strength 29 , 33 Static balance 27 , 29 , 31 , 34 – 37 (63.6%) Single-leg balance test 29 , 34 , 36 , 37 Modified Rhomberg test with eyes closed 35 On a force platform 31 Balance error scoring system 37 Ability to balance without pain 29

Open access

posture at 6 months was evaluated using a simple paradigm where infants sat on a force platform while center of pressure (COP) data were acquired to describe body sway. The MSEL revealed no differences in gross motor development among the three groups of infants. Sitting postural control however, revealed