It is known that high-performance sprinters with unilateral and bilateral prosthetic lower limbs run at different speeds using different spatiotemporal strategies. Historically, these athletes still competed together in the same races, but 2018 classification rule revisions saw the separation of these two groups. This study sought to compare Paralympic sprint performance between all-comer (i.e., transfemoral and transtibial) unilateral and bilateral amputee sprinters using a large athlete sample. A retrospective analysis of race speed among Paralympic sprinters between 1996 and 2016 was conducted. In total, 584 published race results from 161 sprinters revealed that unilateral and bilateral lower-extremity amputee sprinters had significantly different race speeds in all three race finals (100 m, p value <.001; 200 m, <.001; 400 m, <.001). All-comer bilateral amputee runners ran faster than their unilateral counterparts; performance differences increased with race distance. These data support current classification criteria in amputee sprinting, which may create more equal competitive fields in the future.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author: Michael Amick x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Yetsa A. Tuakli-Wosornu, Xiang Li, Kimberly E. Ona Ayala, Yinfei Wu, Michael Amick, and David B. Frumberg
Jeremy A. Patterson, Ryan Z. Amick, Priyanka D. Pandya, Nils Hakansson, and Michael J. Jorgensen
Context:
The most widely used method for postural balance assessment relies on the subjective observations of a test administrator. Accelerometry has been shown to provide a valid and reliable method for assessment of balance, and recent advances in microelectromechanical systems have made the technology available in mobile electronic devices.
Objective:
To compare a mobile technology application with a commonly used subjective balance assessment.
Setting:
Biomechanics laboratory.
Participants:
Twenty-one nonathlete college-aged individuals (7 men, 14 women; mean age 23 ± 3 years) volunteered to participate. Subjects were excluded if they reported any preexisting condition that might affect postural balance.
Results:
A strong inverse correlation was found between the scores for the two balance assessment methods (r = -.767, p < .01).
Conclusions:
Advances in technology have provided an attractive means to objectively quantify postural balance with off-the-shelf mobile consumer electronic devices.
