Motor learning methods that induce high practice variability reduce kinematic and kinetic risk factors of non-contact ACL injury

Orangi, Behzad Mohammadi; Yaali, Rasoul; Bahram, Abbas; Aghdasi, Mohammad Taghi; Kamp, John van der; Vanrenterghem, Jos; Jones, Paul A.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2021.102805

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 13 studies provided at least one measure of strategic and execution variability [ 12 , 66 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 77 , 82 , 83 , 93 – 95 , 98 , 99 ]. 15 studies investigated only execution variability [ 14 , 74 , 75 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 86 – 88 , 90 , 96 , 97 , 100 , 102 , 103 ]. One study investigated only outcome variability [ 71 ].…”

Section: Discussion Of Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Framework to Describe Movement Variability within Sporting Tasks: A Scoping Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Movement variability is defined as the normal variations in motor performance across multiple repetitions of a task. However, the term “movement variability” can mean different things depending on context, and when used by itself does not capture the specifics of what has been investigated. Within sport, complex movements are performed repeatedly under a variety of different constraints (e.g. different situations, presence of defenders, time pressure). Movement variability has implications for sport performance and injury risk management. Given the importance of movement variability, it is important to understand the terms used to measure and describe it. This broad term of “movement variability” does not specify the different types of movement variability that are currently being assessed in the sporting literature. We conducted a scoping review (1) to assess the current terms and definitions used to describe movement variability within sporting tasks and (2) to utilise the results of the review for a proposed framework that distinguishes and defines the different types of movement variability within sporting tasks. To be considered eligible, sources must have assessed a sporting movement or skill and had at least one quantifiable measure of movement variability. A total of 43 peer-reviewed journal article sources were included in the scoping review. A total of 280 terms relating to movement variability terminology were extracted using a data-charting form jointly developed by two reviewers. One source out of 43 (2%) supplied definitions for all types of movement variability discussed. Moreover, 169 of 280 terms (60%) were undefined in the source material. Our proposed theoretical framework explains three types of movement variability: strategic, execution, and outcome. Strategic variability describes the different approaches or methods of movement used to complete a task. Execution variability describes the intentional and unintentional adjustments of the body between repetitions within the same strategy. Outcome variability describes the differences in the result or product of a movement. These types emerged from broader frameworks in motor control and were adapted to fit the movement variability needs in sports literature. By providing specific terms with explicit definitions, our proposed framework can ensure like-to-like comparisons of previous terms used in the literature. The practical goal of this framework is to aid athletes, coaches, and support staff to gain a better understanding of how the different types of movement variability within sporting tasks contribute to performance. The framework may allow training methods to be tailored to optimise the specific aspects of movement variability that contribute to success. This review was retrospectively registered using the Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries (https://osf.io/q73fd).

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Framework to Describe Movement Variability within Sporting Tasks: A Scoping Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a number of reasons that these motor control strategies could have been different such as: the presence of hip pain, movement strategies adopted to avoid symptomatic impingement (34), or impairments in muscle strength or function, all of which have been found in people with FAIS. It has been shown that to change a motor pattern intense and deliberate practice is required (28,35,36), which may or may not be the case for gait re-training following hip arthroscopy due to the extreme variation in postoperative guidelines (37). Therefore, perhaps the reason that these motor control alterations persisting in FAIS patients after surgery, is due to the lack of specific treatments directed at modifying motor control of gait after surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hip Joint Kinematic Covariation During Gait Before and 1-Year After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary aim of this study was to determine if the three-dimensional (3D) hip joint motion coordination during gait changes after arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Three-dimensional hip joint kinematic data were collected with a 12-camera motion capture system. Five trials of level walking were collected preoperatively (PRE) and at 1-year postoperatively (POST) in 8 patients diagnosed with FAIS and at a single time point in 8 healthy controls. Planar covariation analysis was performed to quantify the 3D hip joint motion coordination strategy during gait. Independent sample's t-test were used to determine differences between the FAIS group at the preoperative time point (PRE) and healthy controls. Paired samples t-tests were used to determine differences between the PRE and POST time points within the FAIS group. The %VAF by PC 1 for the FAIS group at the PRE time point was significantly less than that of healthy controls (PRE: 77.2 ± 8.7% vs. Control: 96.1 ± 2.8%; p = 0.0001), and the % VAF of the second PC (PC2) was significantly greater [PRE: 22.8 (8.7)%; Control: 3.9 (2.8)%; p = 0.0001]. No differences in %VAF were found between the PRE and POST time points within the FAIS group for PC1 [PRE: 77.2 (8.7)% vs. POST: 79.3 (11.1)%; p = 0.472] or PC2 [PRE: 22.7 (8.7)%; POST: 20.7 (11.1)%; p = 0.472]. Significant differences in the plane specific contribution to the 3D motion coordination strategy were found between the FAIS patients at the PRE and POST time points for the sagittal plane [PRE: 5.6 (2.7) vs. POST: 0.91 (6.1); p = 0.012] and frontal plane [PRE: −10.4 (2.2) and −1.5 (6.3); p = 0.005]. Patients with FAIS demonstrated a more complex coordination strategy of 3D hip joint motion than controls and this strategy remains unchanged after hip arthroscopic surgery despite changes in the plane specific contribution to this strategy. These findings indicate that motor control impairments in FAIS patients do exist and seem to persist for at least 1 year after hip arthroscopic surgery.

show abstract

“…Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such proposed elements in ACL injury-prevention programmes. However, motor learning methods that induce great practice variability to guide a player’s search for his/her optimal movement solution are promising and warranted [ 80 ].…”

Section: Now What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing ACL Injury Prevention in Daily Sports Practice—It’s Not Just the Program: Let’s Build Together, Involve the Context, and Improve the Content

Benjaminse

Verhagen

2021

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the benefits of current anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programmes have been demonstrated in efficacy studies, they, unfortunately, have had limited public health impact to date. For example, the incidence of ACL injuries continues to rise in adolescent athletes. Raising awareness and educating coaches and athletes is not enough to facilitate the widespread, sustained use of these programmes in the real-world setting. Considering the profound burden of ACL injuries, it is necessary to continue to improve the current ACL injury prevention programmes through co-creation. First, the uptake of the programmes should be optimized by a better appreciation and understanding of the individual, socio-cultural and environmental context (i.e., community). Second, the content of the programmes should be optimized to better reflect the demands of the sport by creating more ownership and increasing motivation (incorporating challenging, sport-specific and fun elements) with the end-users. In addition, implicit motor learning, random practice and differential learning are concepts that should be integrated when practising to obtain the most optimal results when learning or finetuning skills.

show abstract

Motor learning methods that induce high practice variability reduce kinematic and kinetic risk factors of non-contact ACL injury

Cited by 17 publications

References 46 publications

A Proposed Framework to Describe Movement Variability within Sporting Tasks: A Scoping Review

A Proposed Framework to Describe Movement Variability within Sporting Tasks: A Scoping Review

Hip Joint Kinematic Covariation During Gait Before and 1-Year After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Implementing ACL Injury Prevention in Daily Sports Practice—It’s Not Just the Program: Let’s Build Together, Involve the Context, and Improve the Content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About