This study examined the effect of motivational music on a 20-min sub-maximal cycle task. Eighteen untrained student volunteers (10 males, 8 females) were required to partake in three experimental conditions: no music, oudeterous (nonmotivational) music, and motivational music. Participants' in-task affective states and rate of perceived exertion were assessed on rating scales during the trials and the distance traveled for each trial was recorded. In addition, participants' attitudes towards the exercise experience were assessed on rating scales administered post-trial. The results of the study indicate that both motivational and oudeterous music can significantly increase distance traveled when compared to the control condition. However, no significant differences were observed between the two music conditions and the increased exercise intensity associated with musical accompaniments was not associated with an increased perception of effort. Both music conditions elicited increased in-task affect and generated equally positive post-task attitudes towards the exercise experience. No significant Gender )/Trial interactions were identified for any of the dependent measures.
BACKGROUND: Portable and cost-effective accelerometers can yield instantaneous results of force, power, and velocity, with minimum set-up time to assess muscle power. However, such devices must also produce both valid and reliable data. OBJECTIVE: The current study assessed the validity and reliability of the Myotest Pro wireless accelerometer (ACC). METHODS: Thirty physically active males performed two squat jump, on two separate sessions. The jump was recorded simultaneously by a force platform and ACC, which was attached to a barbell resting on the subjects' shoulders. Validity was determined using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and t-test between the maximum force platform (FFP) and ACC (FACC) force. Between session reliability of FACC, power (PACC) and velocity (VACC) from the ACC were assessed with t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: FACC correlated highly to FFP (r = 0.815, p < 0.05), but there was a proportionate ratio bias of 0.81. There was no difference between sessions (p > 0.05) for any variable. High ICCs were found for all variables (FACC 0.90; PACC 0.80; VACC 0.84). Low CV was found for FACC (2.1%), PACC (3.3%) and VACC (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: ACC is a valid and reliable tool to use for assessing barbell movement, but caution in power data interpretation is needed.
Assessing strength and power is crucial for evaluating muscular performance and function. As laboratory testing can be time-consuming or inaccessible to many athletes, portable accelerometers have been developed to assess strength and power on the field. Recently, a wireless accelerometer was introduced to allow for even greater flexibility in assessment. Nevertheless, any assessment tool must be valid and reliable. The aim of the current study was to assess the validity and reliability of a commercially available accelerometer. Forty-eight physically active subjects (males: n=32: age 30±9 years, height 1.79±0.12 m, body mass 82.0±14.3 kg; females: n=16: age 27±6 years, height 1.71±0.06 m, body mass 63.8±7.4 kg) completed two countermovement jump squats on a force plate (FP) with at least 1-min rest, on two separate occasions. The accelerometer was secured on a lightweight bar, which rested on the subjects' shoulders while jumping. The jump with the highest force generation was selected from each occasion for further analysis. Validity was determined from the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between the accelerometer and the FP. Bias was also calculated, using a t test. Reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV), while test-retest differences were examined with a t test. The accelerometer demonstrated significant and high correlation to the FP (p=0.001, r=0.85), while it overestimated force production by 7.8% (p=0.001). Repeatability for both devices was the same (ICC=0.87), with small CV (accelerometer=7.5%, FP=6.1%) and test-retest differences (accelerometer=0.1%, FP=1.1%). The results indicate that the Myotest Pro accelerometer is a valid and reliable tool for assessing force in the field. However, caution needs to be exercised when the results are compared to data obtained from a FP, as the Myotest Pro calculation method overestimates the maximum force produced.
Do w nlo a d e d fro m: h t t p://i n si g h t. c u m b ri a. a c. u k/i d/ e p ri n t/ 1 2 2 2/ U s a g e o f a n y i t e m s f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C u m b r i a' s i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p o s i t o r y 'I n s i g h t' m u s t c o n f o r m t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f a i r u s a g e g u i d e l i n e s .
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.