The aim of this study was to assess the effects of concurrent biomechanical biofeedback on the ability of novices to modify relative knee, spine, and elbow motions during a rowing-type task. After six non-instructed practice sessions, novices were assigned to a biofeedback (BFb; n = 7) or control group (Con; n = 7), before six, ten-minute sessions of continuous rowing were performed over two weeks. The BFb group received concurrent, visual biofeedback for developing sequential timing of knee, spine, and elbow motions during the pull. Following the intervention, the BFb group demonstrated delayed elbow flexion initiation (pre-intervention, 46 ± 11% pull; post-intervention, 78 ± 3% pull; p = 0.001). The biofeedback further promoted the consecutive ending of joint rotations (BFb: knee, 69 ± 4% pull; spine, 73 ± 7% pull; elbow, 85 ± 3% pull; Con: knee, 79 ± 8% pull; spine, 28 ± 6% pull; elbow, 79 ± 4% pull) and a move towards the sequential sequencing pattern. Concurrent biomechanical biofeedback during short-term training altered technique, possibly by providing guidance towards the desired movement pattern and increasing error detection and correction capabilities.
The aims of this study were to assess the effects of stroke rate (SR) on the ability of trained rowers to: a) comply with concurrent biomechanical biofeedback on knee-back-elbow joint sequencing; and b) transfer any changes to competition-intensity conditions (maximal rowing task). Following a fiveminute maximal rowing task (Baseline), 30 trained rowers were randomised to four groups. Two groups rowed at high SRs (90% maximum SR with biofeedback (BFb 90 ) or control), while others rowed at low SRs (60% maximum SR with biofeedback (BFb 60 ) or control) for 3 sessions. All rowers then completed another maximal rowing task (Transfer). Rowers complied with the biofeedback at both SRs, which promoted coordinative changes to knee-elbow motions during the pull. During Transfer, control rowers did not improve whereas those receiving biofeedback covered significantly greater distances (increase from Baseline: BFb 60 = 6 ± 5%; BFb 90 = 5 ± 4%; p < 0.05). However, movement adaptations were temporally different between SRs and were better maintained into Transfer by those that rowed at higher rates. This indicated biofeedback specificity, as transference of modified movement patterns appeared better when acquisition and transfer conditions were similar. These findings have practical implications for assimilating biofeedback into training programmes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.