Baseball players must be able to see and react in an instant, yet it is hotly debated whether superior performance is associated with superior sensorimotor abilities. In this study, we compare sensorimotor abilities, measured through 8 psychomotor tasks comprising the Nike Sensory Station assessment battery, and game statistics in a sample of 252 professional baseball players to evaluate the links between sensorimotor skills and on-field performance. For this purpose, we develop a series of Bayesian hierarchical latent variable models enabling us to compare statistics across professional baseball leagues. Within this framework, we find that sensorimotor abilities are significant predictors of on-base percentage, walk rate and strikeout rate, accounting for age, position, and league. We find no such relationship for either slugging percentage or fielder-independent pitching. The pattern of results suggests performance contributions from both visual-sensory and visual-motor abilities and indicates that sensorimotor screenings may be useful for player scouting.

This study aimed to evaluate the possibility that differences in sensorimotor abilities exist between hitters and pitchers in a large cohort of baseball players of varying levels of experience. Secondary data analysis was performed on 9 sensorimotor tasks comprising the Nike Sensory Station assessment battery. Bayesian hierarchical regression modelling was applied to test for differences between pitchers and hitters in data from 566 baseball players (112 high school, 85 college, 369 professional) collected at 20 testing centres. Explanatory variables including height, handedness, eye dominance, concussion history, and player position were modelled along with age curves using basis regression splines. Regression analyses revealed better performance for hitters relative to pitchers at the professional level in the visual clarity and depth perception tasks, but these differences did not exist at the high school or college levels. No significant differences were observed in the other 7 measures of sensorimotor capabilities included in the test battery, and no systematic biases were found between the testing centres. These findings, indicating that professional-level hitters have better visual acuity and depth perception than professional-level pitchers, affirm the notion that highly experienced athletes have differing perceptual skills. Findings are discussed in relation to deliberate practice theory.

PurposeCentral post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic disorder resulting in pain and disability. An emerging treatment for CPSP is non-invasive brain stimulation including direct current stimulation [tDCS] and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS]. This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and quality of non-invasive brain stimulation intervention studies for CPSP.MethodsStudies were sought from three research databases published between 2007 and 2017. Studies were included if the sole intervention was non-invasive brain stimulation and the primary outcome either clinical or experimental pain intensity. Studies were qualitatively assessed for risk of bias.ResultsOf 1107 articles extracted, six met eligibility criteria. Five studies found a decrease in pain intensity (p<0.05) immediately and 3 weeks after rTMS or tDCS was delivered over the primary motor cortex. For experimental pain, one study found thermal pain thresholds improved for those receiving tDCS compared to sham (p<0.05), while another found normalization of the cold detection threshold only after rTMS (p<0.05). Qualitative assessment revealed only one study rated as “excellent/good” quality, while the other five were rated as “fair” or “poor”.ConclusionNon-invasive brain stimulation may have a therapeutic effect on pain level for individuals with CPSP, as evidenced by significant decreases in clinical and experimental pain scores. However, despite the impact of CPSP and the promise of non-invasive brain stimulation, few rigorous studies have been performed in this area. Future studies should aim to standardize treatment parameters, measure both clinical and experimental pain, and include long-term follow-up.

Background Recent clinical practice guidelines have suggested conservative treatment approaches, including physical therapy, are indicated as first-line treatment for patients with low back pain (LBP); however, LBP continues to be managed with opioids, despite decreases in function, morbidity, and insignificant improvements in pain. Objective The primary purpose was to compare characteristics and downstream medication use between patients with LBP with prior opioid exposure vs. those who were opioid-naïve. The secondary purpose was to explore the role of prior opioid use by LBP disability. Methods Seven hundred and nine participants in a LBP self-management class were evaluated utilizing self-report data at baseline and longitudinal claims data from the Military Health System Data Repository. Participants were dichotomized into opioid-naïve and prior opioid use groups and then further divided into low and high disability groups based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were compared between groups. Results Prior opioid users had significantly higher baseline ODI and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity subscale and work subscale scores as well as pre-index instances of mental health disorders, chronic pain, and insomnia than opioid-naïve individuals. Prior opioid users filled significantly more pain medication prescriptions in the year after the index date than did opioid-naïve individuals. Prior opioid users were significantly more likely to be taking opioids at 1 year after the index date, regardless of disability level. Conclusion In patients presenting with LBP, prior opioid exposure appears to be related to increased analgesic use (opioid and non-opioid) and longitudinal analgesic utilization at 1 year after the index date.

Background Physical therapy for neck and low back pain is highly variable despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). This review aimed to determine the impact of CPG implementation on patient-level outcomes for spinal pain. Implementation strategies were also examined to determine prevalence and potential impact. Methods Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies assessing CPG implementation in physical therapy for neck and low back pain. Articles were screened for eligibility. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was utilized to determine study quality. Due to the heterogeneity between studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Results Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Implementation strategies were significantly varied between studies. Outcomes pertaining to healthcare utilization, pain, and physical functioning were assessed in relation to the implementation of CPGs. Multiple implementation strategies were identified, with Managing Quality as the most frequently utilized key implementation process. Findings indicate CPG implementation decreased healthcare utilization, but inconsistent results were found with physical functioning and pain outcomes. Conclusions CPG implementation appears to have a beneficial effect on healthcare utilization outcomes, but may not impact pain and physical functioning outcomes. Effective CPG implementation strategies remain unknown, though utilizing implementation framework may improve outcomes. More research is needed to determine the most effective implementation strategies and effects on pain and physical function outcomes.