Choice of low-pass filter influences practical interpretation of ball kicking motions: the effect of a time-frequency filter method.

When studying ball kicking, conventional low-pass filters may distort kick leg kinematics near the time of foot-to-ball contact, leading to flawed practical interpretation of the skill. Time-frequency filters are a viable alternative but are not widely used. This study compared a fractional Fourier filter (FrFF) with conventional filters (CF) methods for estimating common parameters used to define kicking performance. Instep kicks from 23 experienced soccer players were captured by 3D motion analysis (1000 Hz), and kick leg foot velocities, knee angular velocities and ankle dorsi-plantarflexion angles compared between the FrFF and variations of a Butterworth CF. The FrFF and CFs using a higher cut-off frequency (>70 Hz) successfully detected lower leg motion prior to, during and following impact, whereas CFs with low cut-off frequencies (<20 Hz) attenuated motion near impact. Truncating data at impact provided valid pre-impact kinematics, but ignored information thereafter. Rather than decelerating the lower leg to conserve accuracy, 'kicking through the ball' should be considered a valid coaching cue. Further, controlling ankle plantar flexion to ensure efficient impact mechanics may be important for skilled kicking. Practitioners should consider how choice of filter will affect their data, and use of time-frequency methods can help inform empirically grounded coaching practices.

Improved accuracy of biomechanical motion data obtained during impacts using a time-frequency low-pass filter.

Biomechanical motion data involving impacts are not adequately represented using conventional low-pass filters (CF). Time-frequency filters (TFF) are a viable alternative, but have been largely overlooked by movement scientists. We modified Georgakis and Subramaniam's (2009) fractional Fourier filter (MFrFF) and demonstrated it performed better than CFs for obtaining lower leg accelerations during football instep kicking. The MFrFF displayed peak marker accelerations comparable to a reference accelerometer during foot-to-ball impact (peak % error = -5.0 ± 11.4%), whereas CFs severely underestimated these peaks (30-70% error). During the non-impact phases, the MFrFF performed comparably to CFs using an appropriate (12-20 Hz) cut-off frequency (RMSE = 37.3 ± 7.6 m/s2 vs. 42.1 ± 11.4 m/s2, respectively). Since accuracy of segmental kinematics is fundamental for understanding human movement, the MFrFF should be applied to a range of biomechanical impact scenarios (e.g. locomotion, landing and striking motions) to enhance the efficacy of study in these areas.

Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back squat variations in maximum loads.

The aim of this study was to compare the musculature activity and kinematics of knee and hip joints during front and back squat with maximal loading. Two-dimensional kinematical data were collected and electromyographic activities of vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, semitendinosus, biceps femoris, gluteus maximus and erector spinae were measured while participants (n = 12, 21.2 ± 1.9 years old) were completing front and back squat exercises with maximum loading. Paired sample t-test was used for comparisons between two techniques. Results showed that the electromyographic activity of vastus medialis was found to be greater in the front squat compared to the back squat during the ascending phase (P < 0.05, d = 0.62; 95% CI, -15.0/-4.17) and the whole manoeuvre (P < 0.05, d = 0.41; 95% CI, -12.8/-0.43), while semitendinosus (P < 0.05, d = -0.79; 95% CI, 0.62/20.59) electromyographic activity was greater in the back squat during the ascending phase. Compared to the front squat version, back squat exhibited significantly greater trunk lean, with no differences occurring in the knee joint kinematics throughout the movement. Results may suggest that the front squat may be preferred to the back squat for knee extensor development and for preventing possible lumbar injuries during maximum loading.

The effect of chalk on the finger-hold friction coefficient in rock climbing.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the effect of chalk on the friction coefficient between climber's fingers and two different rock types (sandstone and limestone). The secondary purpose was to investigate the effects of humidity and temperature on the friction coefficient and on the influence of chalk. Eleven experienced climbers took part in this study and 42 test sessions were performed. Participants hung from holds which were fixed on a specially designed hang board. The inclination of the hang board was progressively increased until the climber's hand slipped from the holds. The angle of the hang board was simultaneously recorded by using a gyroscopic sensor and the friction coefficient was calculated at the moment of slip. The results showed that there was a significant positive effect of chalk on the coefficient of friction (+18.7% on limestone and +21.6% on sandstone). Moreover sandstone had a higher coefficient of friction than limestone (+15.6% without chalk, +18.4% with chalk). These results confirmed climbers' belief that chalk enhances friction. However, no correlation with humidity/temperature and friction coefficient was noted which suggested that additional parameters should be considered in order to understand the effects of climate on finger friction in rock climbing.

Effect of hold depth and grip technique on maximal finger forces in rock climbing.

The aim of this study was to understand how the commonly used climbing-specific grip techniques and hold depths influence the finger force capacities. Ten advanced climbers performed maximal voluntary force on four different hold depths (from 1 to 4 cm) and in two force directions (antero-posterior and vertical) using three grip techniques (slope, half crimp and full crimp). A specially designed platform instrumented with a 6-degrees-of-freedom (DoF) force/torque sensor was used to record force values. Results showed that the maximal vertical forces differed significantly according to the hold depth and the grip technique (ranged from 350.8 N to 575.7 N). The maximal vertical forces increased according to the hold depth but the form of this increase differed depending on grip technique. These results seemed to be more associated with finger-hold contact/interaction than with internal biomechanical factors. Similar results were revealed for antero-posterior forces (ranged from 69.9 N to 138.0 N) but, it was additionally noted that climbers have different hand-forearm posture strategies with slope and crimp grip techniques when applying antero-posterior forces. This point is important as it could influence the body position adopted during climbing according to the chosen grip technique. For trainers and designers, a polynomial regression model was proposed in order to predict the mean maximal force based on hold depth and adopted grip technique.