The Validity of the SmartJump Contact Mat

Reeve, Tom; Tyler, Christopher J.

doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e318269f7f1

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of the computational approach implemented on the vertical height computed from SJs and CMJs has been reported elsewhere (9,25,36), confirming that the specific determination of jump test variables relies on the computational method chosen and limits the absolute comparability of published material using different methodologies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Although jump test parameters derived from GRFs are often used as a "gold-standard" or reference criterion (8,16,36), extracting parameters from force-plates also has its limitations. In particular, the data manipulation required to extract the performance variables amplifies any noise in the raw signal (46), which increases the risk of accumulating error in results (12).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The MARS for Squat, Countermovement, and Standing Long Jump Performance Analyses

Hébert‐Losier¹,

Beaven²

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jump tests are often used to assess the effect of interventions because their outcomes are reported valid indicators of functional performance. In this study, we examined the reproducibility of performance parameters from 3 common jump tests obtained using the commercially available Kistler Measurement, Analysis and Reporting Software (MARS). On 2 separate days, 32 men performed 3 squat jumps (SJs), 3 countermovement jumps (CMJs), and 3 standing long jumps (LJs) on a Kistler force-plate. On both days, the performance measures from the best jump of each series were extracted using the MARS. Changes in the mean scores, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and coefficients of variations (CVs) were computed to quantify the between-day reproducibility of each parameter. Moreover, the reproducibility quantifiers specific to the 3 separate jumps were compared using nonparametric tests. Overall, an acceptable between-day reproducibility (mean ± SD, ICC, and CV) of SJ (0.88 ± 0.06 and 7.1 ± 3.8%), CMJ (0.84 ± 0.17 and 5.9 ± 4.1%), and LJ (0.80 ± 0.13 and 8.1 ± 4.1%) measures was found using the MARS, except for parameters directly relating to the rate of force development (i.e., time to maximal force) and change in momentum during countermovement (i.e., negative force impulse) where reproducibility was lower. A greater proportion of the performance measures from the standing LJs had low ICCs and/or high CVs values most likely owing to the complex nature of the LJ test. Practitioners and researchers can use most of the jump test parameters from the MARS with confidence to quantify changes in the functional ability of individuals over time, except for those relating to the rate of force development or change in momentum during countermovement phases of jumps.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The MARS for Squat, Countermovement, and Standing Long Jump Performance Analyses

Hébert‐Losier¹,

Beaven²

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jump height was calculated from take-off velocity (take-off velocity 2 ÷ 2g) (20). Velocity was obtained by integrating acceleration with respect to time using the trapezoid rule using the method described by Owen et al (18) Acceleration was obtained by dividing force (less weight…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the results of this study showed that there was a small but significant difference between the propulsion (240.49 ± 24.46 Ns) and landing (250.77 ± 35.94 Ns) impulses. It is likely that this is a consequence of the differences between take-off and landing position that have been posited to cause differences between jump heights obtained from flight time and take-off velocity (8,20). This reinforces the need for practitioners to exercise caution when choosing a method to obtain loaded vertical jump height because these differences could have a direct impact on the accuracy of vertical jump heights…”

Section: A C C E P T E Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Barbell Load on Vertical Jump Landing Force-Time Characteristics

Lake

Mundy

Comfort

et al. 2021

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DISCUSSIONAdding barbell load to vertical jumping does not increase peak impact force or change force absorption during the impact and stabilizing landing sub-phases. Loaded vertical jumping is a relatively simple way to assess neuromuscular function and identify training loads. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSThe results show that additional load does not change force absorption. However, future research should examine whether lower-body joint kinetics and kinematics change during loaded CMJ landing. RESULTSResults are presented in Figure 2 & 3. Load reduced jump height, but did not effect impact peak force. Load increased landing time, but relative impact and stabilising time did not change. Impact and stabilising phase change in velocity decreased with load, but relative change in velocity did not.

show abstract

“…In order to control the arm countermovement between trials, participants were asked to maintain their hands at waist level throughout the jumping maneuver. Jump performance was quantified by the maximum jump height and the peak jump power, measured by a validated tool Smartjump™ (Fusion Sport, Queensland, Australia) according to the previously documented method (Reeve and Tyler, 2013). Mean values of the outcome variables were averaged between three attempts.…”

Section: Testing Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%