Running-related injuries (RRI) may result from accumulated microtrauma caused by combinations of high load magnitudes (vertical ground reaction forces; vGRFs) and numbers (strides). Yet relationships between vGRF and RRI remain unclear - potentially because previous research has largely been constrained to collecting vGRFs in laboratory settings and ignoring relationships between RRI and stride number. In this preliminary proof-of-concept study, we addressed these constraints: Over a 60-day period, each time collegiate athletes (n = 9) ran they wore a hip-mounted activity monitor that collected accelerations throughout the entire run. Accelerations were used to estimate peak vGRF, number of strides, and weighted cumulative loading (sum of peak vGRFs weighted to the 9th power) across the entirety of each run. Runners also reported their post-training pain/fatigue and any RRI that prevented training. Across 419 runs and >2.1 million strides, injured (n = 3) and uninjured (n = 6) participants did not report significantly different pain/fatigue (p = 0.56) or mean number of strides per run (p = 0.91). Injured participants did, however, have significantly greater peak vGRFs (p = 0.01) and weighted cumulative loading per run (p < 0.01). Results from this small but extensively studied sample of elite runners demonstrate that loading profiles (load magnitude-number combinations) quantified with activity monitors can provide valuable information that may prove essential for: (1) testing hypotheses regarding overuse injury mechanisms, (2) developing injury-prediction models, and (3) designing and adjusting athlete- and loading-specific training programs and feedback.

The joint Simon effect (JSE) is a spatialcompatibility effect that emerges when two people complete complementary components of a Simon task. In typical JSE studies, two participants sit beside each other and perform gono-go tasks in which they respond to one of two stimuli by pressing a button. According to the action co-representation account, JSEs emerge because each participant represents their partner's response in addition to their own, causing the same conflicts in processing that would occur if an individual responded to both stimuli (i.e., as in a two-choice task). Because the response buttons are typically in front of participants, however, an alternative explanation is that JSEs are the result of a dimensional overlap between target and response locations coded with respect to another salient object (e.g., the co-actor's effector). To contrast these hypotheses, the participants in the present study completed two-choice and joint Simon tasks in which they were asked to focus on generating an aftereffect in the space contralateral to their response. Hommel (Psychological Research 55:270-279, 1993) previously reported that, when participants completed a two-choice task under such effect-focused instructions, spatialcompatibility effects emerged that were based on the aftereffect location instead of the response location. Consistent with the co-representation account, the results of the present study were that an inverse aftereffect-based (i.e., not a responselocation-based) compatibility effect was observed in both the two-choice and joint tasks. The overall pattern of results does not fit with the spatial-coding account and is discussed in the context of the extant JSE literature.

Numerous studies have revealed that when people sit next to each other and complete separate parts of a Simon task, response times are shorter when the participants' stimulus appears in front of them than when the stimulus appears in the opposite side of space. According to the action co-representation account of this joint Simon effect (JSE), participants represent each other's responses and the compatibility effects emerge because of a set of facilitatory and inhibitory processes that are similar to those that are activated when individuals perform the entire Simon task alone. D. Guagnano, E. Rusconi, and C. A. Umiltà (2010) argued against this account as the sole mechanism based on their finding that a JSE was not observed when participants sat outside of each other's peripersonal space. Notably, the task in the Guagnano et al.'s was a modified version of the conventional JSE task designed to increase the independence of the partners. Here, we reconsider the arguments of Guagnano et al. and report a study in which the authors failed to replicate their key finding. Considering the extant JSE literature, we conclude that the null effect in Guagnano et al.'s study may be an anomaly and that co-representation remains a leading candidate for the critical process underlying JSEs.

No abstract