Literature DB >> 32688389

Influence of Anticipation and Motor-Motor Task Performance on Cutting Biomechanics in Healthy Men.

Grant E Norte1, Taylor R Frendt1, Amanda M Murray2, Charles W Armstrong3, Thomas J McLoughlin3, Luke T Donovan4.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Biomechanical analyses of cutting tasks have demonstrated kinematic differences associated with the noncontact knee-injury risk when the movement direction is unanticipated. Motor-motor dual tasks occur within dynamic environments and change the demand for attentional resources needed to complete athletic maneuvers, which may contribute to injury risk.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of anticipation and motor-motor task performance on cutting biomechanics.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 32 healthy, recreationally active men (age = 23.1 ± 3.6 years, height = 180.0 ± 7.0 cm, mass = 81.3 ± 17.3 kg) who self-reported regular participation in cutting sports. INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed a 45° side-step cut on the dominant limb in a random order of conditions: anticipation (anticipated, unanticipated) and task (no ball throw, ball fake, ball throw). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Triplanar trunk, hip, and knee angles were assessed throughout the stance phase using 3-dimensional motion capture. Data were analyzed using a time series of means calculated from initial contact to toe-off (0%-100%) with 90% confidence intervals. Mean differences between conditions were identified as regions of nonoverlapping confidence intervals, and those that occurred during the region of peak vertical ground reaction force (0%-25%) are presented.
RESULTS: Regardless of anticipation, attending to a ball (ball throw) resulted in more trunk extension (range = 2.9°-3.7°) and less lateral trunk flexion toward the cutting direction (range = 5.2°-5.9°). Planning to attend to a ball (ball fake) resulted in less lateral trunk flexion toward the cutting direction (4.7°). During unanticipated cutting, more trunk rotation away from the cutting direction was observed when attending to a ball (range = 5.3°-7.1°). The interaction of anticipation and task had a similar influence on sagittal- and frontal-plane trunk position.
CONCLUSIONS: Motor-motor task performance and its interaction with anticipation induced an upright, neutral trunk position during side-step cutting, which has been associated with the risk for noncontact knee injury. Promoting task complexity during rehabilitation and injury-prevention programs may better prepare individuals to succeed when performing high-risk athletic maneuvers. © by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attentional resources; dual task; kinematics; lower extremity; trunk

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32688389      PMCID: PMC7462170          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-569-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  35 in total

1.  Comparison of frontal plane trunk kinematics and hip and knee moments during anticipated and unanticipated walking and side step cutting tasks.

Authors:  Jeff R Houck; Andrew Duncan; Kenneth E De Haven
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 2.840

2.  Sport-dependent variations in arm position during single-limb landing influence knee loading: implications for anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  Ajit M Chaudhari; Brenna K Hearn; Thomas P Andriacchi
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-04-12       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 3.  Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing.

Authors:  J M Sheppard; W B Young
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.337

4.  The effects of single-leg landing technique on ACL loading.

Authors:  Walter A Laughlin; Joshua T Weinhandl; Tom W Kernozek; Stephen C Cobb; Kevin G Keenan; Kristian M O'Connor
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form.

Authors:  F Hefti; W Müller; R P Jakob; H U Stäubli
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Osteoarthritis prevalence following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and numbers-needed-to-treat analysis.

Authors:  Brittney Luc; Phillip A Gribble; Brian G Pietrosimone
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Pivot task increases knee frontal plane loading compared with sidestep and drop-jump.

Authors:  Nelson Cortes; James Onate; Bonnie Van Lunen
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.337

8.  Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure.

Authors:  E M Roos; H P Roos; L S Lohmander; C Ekdahl; B D Beynnon
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.751

Review 9.  The role of executive function and attention in gait.

Authors:  Galit Yogev-Seligmann; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Nir Giladi
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 10.338

10.  Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  B P Boden; G S Dean; J A Feagin; W E Garrett
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Anterior cruciate ligament injury mechanisms through a neurocognition lens: implications for injury screening.

Authors:  Alli Gokeler; Anne Benjaminse; Francesco Della Villa; Fillippo Tosarelli; Evert Verhagen; Jochen Baumeister
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2021-05-17

2.  The Neuroplastic Adaptation Trident Model: A Suggested Novel Framework for ACL Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Timothy Machan; Kody Krupps
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2021-06-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.