Relationship between postural control and muscle activity during a handstand in young and adult gymnasts

Kochanowicz, Andrzej; Niespodziński, Bartłomiej; Marina, Míchel; Biskup, Leon; Kochanowicz, Kazimierz

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2018.02.007

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the COPS framework, the CoM is the controlled variable, stabilized by the modulation of the CoP, which plays the role of the control variable in the feedback loop. Such control strategy applies to standard upright standing but also to less familiar situations like handstanding [14][15][16][17] or inverted stick balancing on a fingertip [18][19][20]: in the former case, the ankle joint is substituted by the wrist joint, while, in the latter, by the contact point of the stick on the finger. However, in both cases, as in upright standing, the brain must learn to shift the CoP, back and forth and side to side, with the appropriate timing and amplitude, in order to keep the CoP-CoM virtual inverted pendulum up and avoid a fall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centre of pressure versus centre of mass stabilization strategies: the tightrope balancing case

Morasso

2020

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes a generalization of the ankle and hip postural strategies to be applied to the large class of skills that share the same basic challenge of defeating the destabilizing effect of gravity on the basis of the same neuromotor control organization, adapted and specialized to a variable number of degrees of freedom, different body parts, different muscles and different sensory feedback channels. In all the cases, we can identify two crucial elements (the CoP, centre of pressure and the CoM, centre of mass) and the central point of the paper is that most balancing skills can be framed in the CoP–CoM interplay and can be modelled as a combination/alternation of two basic stabilization strategies: the standard well-investigated COPS (or CoP stabilization strategy, the default option), where the CoM is the controlled variable and the CoP is the control variable, and the less investigated COMS (or CoM stabilization strategy), where CoP and CoM must exchange their role because the range of motion of the CoP is strongly constrained by environmental conditions. The paper focuses on the tightrope balancing skill where sway control in the sagittal plane is modelled in terms of the COPS while the more challenging sway in the coronal plane is modelled in terms of the COMS, with the support of a suitable balance pole. Both stabilization strategies are implemented as state-space intermittent, delayed feedback controllers, independent of each other. Extensive simulations support the degree of plausibility, generality and robustness of the proposed approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centre of pressure versus centre of mass stabilization strategies: the tightrope balancing case

Morasso

2020

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, the reports of Miyatani, Kanehisa & Fukunaga (2000) warrants to interpret the current results as that the muscle quality of elbow flexors in GYM is lower than that in JD. Secondly, the muscle activities during handstand are higher in the elbow extensors than in the elbow flexors (Kochanowicz et al, 2018a). Furthermore, F-V profile may be affected by muscle architecture (Morales-Artacho et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Force-velocity relationship profile of elbow flexors in male gymnasts

Nakatani

Murata

Kanehisa

et al. 2021

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The theoretical maximum force (F0), velocity (V0), and power (Pmax) of athletes calculated from the relationship between force and velocity (F-V relationship) and the slope of the F-V relationship, reflect their competitive and training activity profiles. Evaluating the F-V relationship of athletes facilitates categorizing the profiles of dynamic muscle functions in relation to long-term sport-specific training. For gymnastics, however, no studies have tried to examine the profiles of F-V relation and power output for upper limb muscles in relation to the muscularity, while the use of the upper extremities in this sport is very unique as described earlier. Purpose It was hypothesized that the F-V relationship of the elbow flexion in gymnasts might be characterized by low capacity for generating explosive force, notably in terms of the force normalized to muscle size. Methods The F0, V0, and Pmax derived from the force-velocity relationship during explosive elbow flexion against six different loads (unloaded condition, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75% of maximal voluntary isometric elbow flexion force (MVFEF)) for 16 gymnasts (GYM) and 22 judo athletes (JD). F0 and Pmax were expressed as values relative to the cross-sectional area index (CSAindex) of elbow flexors (F0/CSAindex and Pmax/CSAindex, respectively), which was calculated from muscle thickness in the anterior upper arm. The electromyogram (EMG) activities of the biceps brachii (BB) during the maximal isometric and dynamic tasks were also determined. Results There were no significant differences in CSAindex of elbow flexors between GYM and JD. MVFEF/CSAindex for GYM was significantly lower than that for JD. Force was linearly associated with velocity in the dynamic elbow flexion for all the participants (r = − 0.997 to −0.905 for GYM, r = − 0.998 to −0.840 for JD). F0, F0/ CSAindex, V0, Pmax, Pmax/CSAindex, and MVFEF were significantly lower in GYM than in JD. The activity levels of BB during the dynamic tasks tended to be lower in GYM than in JD at load of <45%MVC. Conclusion Gymnasts cannot generate explosive elbow flexion force corresponding to their muscle size. This may be due to low neuromuscular activities during the maximal dynamic tasks against relatively low loads.

show abstract

“…Muscle activity changes both during the ontogenetic development ( Dotan et al, 2012 ) and as a training effect ( Felici, 2006 ). It was previously reported that young gymnasts in comparison with adult athletes exhibited different patterns of muscle activity in other fundamental skills such as a handstand ( Kochanowicz et al, 2018 ). It is expected that some differences in muscle activation should also be observed during landings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neuromuscular Characteristics of Gymnasts’ Jumps and Landings at Particular Stages of Sports Training

Niespodziński

Grad

Kochanowicz

et al. 2021

Journal of Human Kinetics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safe and proper landings are crucial elements of gymnastics events. Long-term training leads to specific neuromuscular adaptations which are yet to be explored in terms of gymnastic landings. The aim of the study was to assess differences in landings’ neuromuscular characteristics between gymnasts at three subsequent gymnastic training stages and age-matched non-athletes. Forty-six gymnasts (G) and 58 controls (C) performed countermovement jumps on a force plate with simultaneous surface electromyography (SEMG) of lower body muscles, measured during the pre-(100 ms) and post-landing phase (0-100 and 0-200 ms). Three age groups participated in the study: 8–10 (G1, C1), 12–14 (G2, C2), 18–25 (G3, C3) years. Analysis included the normalized root mean square (NRMS) SEMG signal and ground reaction forces (GRFs). Gymnasts achieved 13% higher values (p = 0.04) of relative peak GRFs in comparison with controls. It was especially seen in 8–10-year-olds: G1 presented 33% higher (p = 0.03) results than C1 and G2. In SEMG analysis, gymnasts showed overall lower NRMS values in comparison with the controls. In the pre-landing phase, the NRMS in the rectus femoris was from 1.6 up to 3.4 times higher for C1 (p = 0.02) than for C2, G2, C3, and G3. Gymnasts across subsequent training stages exhibit different patterns of neuromuscular coordination during landings. The highest GRF observed in the youngest gymnasts may be a potential risk factor of injuries. Therefore, further injury-focused investigation is recommended to monitor landing strategies among gymnasts of different stages with particular emphasis on the beginners.

show abstract

Relationship between postural control and muscle activity during a handstand in young and adult gymnasts

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Centre of pressure versus centre of mass stabilization strategies: the tightrope balancing case

Centre of pressure versus centre of mass stabilization strategies: the tightrope balancing case

Force-velocity relationship profile of elbow flexors in male gymnasts

The Neuromuscular Characteristics of Gymnasts’ Jumps and Landings at Particular Stages of Sports Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About