Countermovement vertical jump (CMVJ) studies using ground reaction force (GRF) data analyze either unfiltered (i.e., raw) or filtered data while providing little-to-no justification for the selected filtering process. Inappropriate filter choices can lead to inaccurate study results and erroneous interpretations. We examined the effects of not filtering GRF data in comparison with filtering data with various objectively and subjectively selected cutoff frequencies. Twenty-one collegiate male basketball players completed 3 maximal-effort CMVJ trials while GRF data were obtained from 2 force platforms. Countermovement vertical jump performance, explosiveness, power output, and neuromuscular function variables were compared among the following methods using one-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (a 5 0.05): no filtering (raw data), a standard 50-Hz cutoff (50 Hz), a visually determined cutoff frequency describing the frequency band containing the majority of the summed (visual inspection 1) or not-summed (visual inspection 2) GRF signal's frequency content, filtering the summed (99% signal power 1) or not-summed (99% signal power 2) GRF using a cutoff frequency retaining 99% of the signal power. The raw data method produced significantly shorter concentric phase times and significantly greater center of mass flight heights (;3%), modified reactive strength indices (RSI MOD ; ;4%), power outputs (;6%), and push-off distances (;4%) than 99% signal power 1 and 2 (p , 0.05). Discrete GRF and phase-specific yank magnitudes were not different among methods (p $ 0.05). Importantly, no differences were detected between the raw data and 50 Hz methods for any variable (p . 0.05). Low-pass filtering is not necessary when analyzing GRF data from the CMVJ. However, a low-pass filter with a 50-Hz cutoff can remove noise without altering results when compared with raw data. Explicit methodological descriptions of filtering processes should always be provided to improve the integrity of future CMVJ analyses, comparisons among various studies' results, or both.

It is remarkable that the movement time of a goal-directed movement, the result of complex coordination in the nervous system, can be predicted by a simple mathematical equation. That equation is Fitts' law, and it is one of only a few laws that capture human motor performance. It has recently been shown that reaches to targets with placeholders modulate Fitts' law (e.g. Adam et al. in Psychol Sci 17(9):794-798, 2006). The purpose of this study was to further test whether the modulation to Fitts' law is a result of processes related to movement preparation or movement execution. Preparation and control processes were isolated with trajectory analysis; specifically, the durations of the primary submovement and the secondary submovement were selected to reflect the preparation and control processes, respectively. The time available for movement preparation was also manipulated by precuing the target in some blocks. We found that the modulation to Fitts' law in total movement time with target placeholders occurred during the secondary submovement, suggesting that control processes were the locus of the modulation. However, extending the duration of preparation with a precue eliminated the modulation in total movement time, which suggests that preparation processes were the locus of the modulation. Based on these results, it is premature to isolate unequivocally the modulation to either preparation or control processes. The modulation to Fitts' law during the secondary submovement presents the possibility that facilitated online control may contribute to the modulation.

The goal of this study was to determine the process or processes most likely to be involved in reaction-time costs for spatially cued bimanual reaching. We used reaction time to measure the cost of bimanual symmetric movements compared to unimanual movements (a bimanual symmetric cost) and the cost for bimanual asymmetric movements compared to symmetric movements (a bimanual asymmetric cost). The results showed that reaction times were comparable for all types of movements in simple reaction time; that is, there was neither a bimanual symmetric cost nor an asymmetric cost. Therefore, unimanual, bimanual symmetric, and bimanual asymmetric movements have comparable complexity during response initiation. In choice conditions, there was no bimanual symmetric cost but there was a bimanual asymmetric cost, indicating that the preparation of asymmetric movements is more complex than symmetric movements. This asymmetric cost is likely the result of interference during response programming.

No abstract

No abstract