Limits in reliability of leg-spring and joint stiffness measures during single-leg hopping within a sled-based system

David Diggin; Ross Anderson; Andrew J. Harrison

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225664

Abstract

Research examining the reliability of stiffness measures during hopping has shown strong consistency in leg-spring stiffness (k_leg), but high variability in joint stiffness (k_joint) measures. Sled-based systems (SBS) reduce movement degrees-of-freedom and are used to examine stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) function under controlled conditions. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of k_leg and k_joint during single-leg hopping within an SBSKinematic and kinetic data were collected on four occasions (Day_1, Day_2, Day_3 and Day_3_Offset). Participants completed two trials of single-leg hopping at different frequencies (1.5, 2.2 and 3.0 Hz) while attached to an inclined-SBS. Stiffness was determined using models of leg-spring (k_leg) and torsional (k_joint) stiffness. Statistical analysis identified absolute and relative measures of reliability. Results showed moderate reliability for k_leg at 1.5 Hz between inter-day testing bouts, and weak consistency at 2.2 and 3.0 Hz. Examination of intra-day comparisons showed weak agreement for repeated measures of k_leg at 1.5 and 2.2 Hz, but moderate agreement at 3.0 Hz. Limits in k_leg reliability were accompanied by weak-to-moderate agreement in k_joint measures across inter- and intra-day testing bouts. Results showed limits in the reliability of stiffness measures relative to previous reports on overground hopping. Lack of consistency in k_leg and k_joint may be due to the novelty of hopping within the current inclined-SBS. Constraints imposed on the hopping task resulting from SBS design (e.g. additional chair mass, restricting upper body movement) may have also influenced limits in k_leg and k_joint reliability. Researchers should consider these findings when employing inclined-SBS of a similar design to examine SSC function.

Citation: Diggin D, Anderson R, Harrison AJ (2019) Limits in reliability of leg-spring and joint stiffness measures during single-leg hopping within a sled-based system. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0225664. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664

Editor: Andreas Kramer, Universitat Konstanz, GERMANY

Received: June 18, 2019; Accepted: November 8, 2019; Published: December 5, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Diggin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study is publicly available at: https://figshare.com/ (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.10308539).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) tasks are characterised by eccentric lengthening immediately followed by concentric shortening [1]. These actions are typical of human movement (e.g. walking, running, jumping and throwing) and serve to enhance concentric force output and movement efficiency [1,2]. Knowledge of mechanisms controlling SSC function are therefore relevant to general health and athletic performance. SSC function has subsequently been examined during walking [3], running [4,5], jumping [4], under fatigued conditions [6–10] and before and after training [11,12].

It is understood that the efficiency of SSC task performance is regulated by a combination of elastic and neural mechanisms [1]. Of importance to elastic mechanisms of SSC performance is the property stiffness (k). Stiffness represents the resistance of a body to deformation and reflects the elastic nature of the body [13,14]. In humans, greater stiffness is found to enhance the operational effectiveness of the SSC [15–17], yet higher levels of stiffness also contribute to musculoskeletal injury [18]. When examining stiffness characteristics during SSC tasks, researchers often model the elastic nature of the entire leg as a linear-spring (i.e. k_leg) [9,19–22]. Torsional stiffness models are also used to clarify the contribution of the stiffness of each joint (k_joint) to k_leg [7].

The reliability of k_leg and k_joint measures has been examined during SSC tasks [22,23]. During double- and single-leg hopping, Joseph et al. [23] and Diggin et al. [22] showed good agreement (ICC > 0.80) for repeated measures of k_leg when hopping frequency is controlled. In contrast, measurement consistency declined (ICC = 0.20–0.86) during running and hopping at self-selected frequencies [23]. Furthermore, k_joint measures have consistently demonstrated questionable reliability during natural hopping and running tasks. Joseph et al. [23] showed poor reliability for all k_joint variables measured (ICC = 0.51–0.92; CV > 20%). Diggin and colleagues [22] showed strong consistency for repeated measures of k_ankle, but weak-to-moderate agreement for k_knee and k_hip (ICC = 0.57–0.93) during single-leg hopping. It must be noted that in efficient SSC tasks (e.g. hopping), participants must coordinate the body’s musculoskeletal structures (e.g. segments, muscles, joints) in an integrated fashion to achieve the movement goal. These requirements produce inherent variability in movement patterns which can impact movement consistency and measurement reliability [24]. It is possible that limits in k_leg and k_joint reliability previously reported, were caused by extraneous movements (esp. upper body) that impacted landing consistency.

Researchers have used sled-based systems (SBS) to offset issues associated with extraneous upper body movements [8,19,25,26]. While construction varies between laboratories, these systems often include rails positioned at angles below vertical orientation (e.g. 0°–30° to horizontal) [12,27]. A force plate mounted at the end of the system provides kinetic information of participants’ performance [6,25,28]. Participants perform SSC tasks (e.g. drop / rebound jumps, hopping) while attached to a chair / platform (sled) that slides up and down the inclined rails. SBS regulate levels of mechanical load experienced during SSC tasks by (i) altering rail angle [27]; (ii) employing a winch system to control initial eccentric loading [19,29]; and (iii) reducing movement degrees-of-freedom [10,30]. For lower body SBS, performance of SSC tasks while attached to the chair limits upper body movement and allows researchers to control impact velocities and eccentric loading [8,19]. Furthermore, the restricted path of the sledge chair might reduce task constraints and facilitate consistent landing patterns which can impact measurement reliability.

The reliability of kinematic and kinetic variables measured during SSC task performance within an SBS has been examined. Debenham and colleagues [10] reported strong agreement (ICC = 0.87) for ankle joint range-of-motion recorded during single-leg hopping tasks within an SBS. During drop (DJ) and rebound jump (RBJ) tasks, Flanagan and Harrison [19] reported strong consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.95) for temporal and kinetic variables tested (e.g. flight time, F_{z max}, reactive strength index). Similarly, during a simulated hopping task within an SBS, Furlong and Harrison [29] reported strong consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.90) for temporal (CT, flight time) and kinetic (e.g. F_{z max}, peak rate of force development) variables. Flanagan and Harrison [19] reported strong reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.95) for repeated measures of k_leg during jumping tasks (Cronbach’s α > 0.95) within an SBS.

Given the purpose of the SBS is to reduce extraneous upper body movement to encourage landing and measurement consistency, it is possible that stiffness measures (esp. k_joint) achieved during hopping within an SBS might demonstrate strong reliability. To date, the consistency of k_leg and k_joint measures recorded during hopping within an SBS has not been examined. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of stiffness measures during hopping within an inclined-SBS. It was hypothesized that restricting extraneous upper body movement would facilitate strong consistency for k_leg and k_joint variables during hopping tasks.

Materials and methods

Participant characteristics

Thirty-two students (16 males and 16 females; mean ± SD age 21.3 ± 2.9 years; stature 1.70 ± 0.08 m; mass 69.9 ± 10.0 kg) volunteered to participate. Volunteers were recruited via e-mail circulated to the campus community. All participants were physically active as members of a university sports club, attending bi-weekly practices and represented the university at varsity level. Participants were injury free for at least six months prior to testing as determined via health screening questionnaire. Procedures were approved by the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Education and Health Science at the University of Limerick, and all participants provided written informed consent. To limit the effects of fatigue on stiffness measurement, participants were instructed to abstain from vigorous physical activity 24 hours before testing bouts.

Experimental procedures

Participants completed a familiarization session one week prior to initial testing to acquaint them with procedures (Day_0) [31]. Following this, participants underwent testing on four occasions. The first (Day_1), second (Day_2) and third (Day_3) testing bouts took place at the same time of day, spaced three to seven days apart [23,32]. On the final test day, participants completed procedures twice; at their typically scheduled time (Day_3) and six hours prior to or following their scheduled time (Day_3_Offset) [22].

For each test, participants wore dark, tight-fitting clothing. Retro-reflective markers (14 mm) were placed at six anatomical locations on participants’ right side (acromion process, greater trochanter, lateral epicondyle of the femur, lateral malleolus, calcaneus and fifth metatarsal). Marker placement was conducted by the same tester throughout for consistency. During all test bouts (Day_0 –Day_3), participants completed two 10 second trials of single-leg hopping at each of 1.5, 2.2 and 3.0 Hz in time with a digital metronome (TempoPerfect Metronome, NCH Software, Greenwood Village, CO, USA) while secured within an SBS (Fig 1). The design of the SBS was described previously [12,19]. As previous research suggests little effect of leg dominance on k_leg or k_joint [23], participants were instructed to land as close as possible to the force plate center (AMTI OR6-5; AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) in time with the metronome, using their right leg and natural hopping technique. Trials were accepted for analysis if participants hopped within ± 5% of the target frequency [33,34]. The order of hopping trials was randomly assigned, and participants received 60 seconds recovery between each trial to limit fatigue effects. An analogue triggering device was used to initiate 3D kinematic and kinetic data acquisition simultaneously. Kinematic data were recorded using three MAC Eagle cameras (MotionAnalysis Corporation, Santa Rosa CA, USA) operating at 200 Hz. Kinetic data were recorded at 1 kHz over the 10 second duration.

Download:

Fig 1. Image showing the experimental set-up for hopping trials within the sled-based system.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664.g001

Data processing

Analysis of data revealed an inconsistent delay in the initiation of kinematic and kinetic recordings. Whittlesey and Robertson [35] noted that kinematic and kinetic input signals must be temporally aligned to facilitate valid inverse dynamics analysis. Work in our laboratory has shown that maximum rate of change in fifth metatarsal marker acceleration profiles (i.e. peak jerk), coincide with ground contact to within 3.83 (± 1.06) ms of force plate criterion measures during overground hopping. Fifth metatarsal vertical coordinate data were subsequently differentiated to jerk [36]. The time of peak jerk was determined, and kinematic data were subsequently aligned with the time at which the vertical force increased above 5 N.

Marker trajectories were digitized using Cortex motion analysis software (version 2.1; MotionAnalysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA, USA). 3D kinematic and kinetic data were subsequently exported and analyzed using customized MS Excel macros. Recorded kinematic and kinetic data were concurrently filtered using a fourth-order Butterworth Low-Pass digital filter with an optimal cut-off of 11 Hz determined via residual analysis [36]. 3D coordinate data were subsequently interpolated to 1 kHz using a cubic spline. Filtered kinematic and kinetic data were used to calculate resultant joint moments occurring about ankle (M_ankle), knee (M_knee) and hip (M_hip) joints throughout the ground contact phase of each trial using inverse dynamics [7,23,37]. Segment inertia and mass characteristics were determined using the standards of Dempster [38]. Having calculated resultant moments, average torsional stiffness of the ankle (k_ankle), knee (k_knee) and hip (k_hip) were calculated as a ratio of changes in joint moment (ΔM_joint) and angle (Δϴ_joint) for respective lower limb joints [7,23].

In addition, k_leg was recorded throughout the ground contact phase of all hopping trials using the spring-mass model [21]. Thus k_leg was calculated as the ratio of F_{z max} and maximum leg compression (ΔLeg_L) occurring during ground contact as measured from video records [39], where leg length represented the distance between the greater trochanter and the center-of-force [40]. In all analyzed trials, the temporal occurrence of discrete events of F_{z max} and ΔLeg_L coincided to within 10% of the hop period.

Statistical analysis

The mean of 5 consecutive hops occurring within the middle of each 10-second trial was calculated for dependent variables and compared within and between experimental bouts. Differences between the means recorded for each experimental bout were established for each hopping frequency (HopFreq) using repeated measures ANOVA (parametric variables) or Friedman’s test (non-parametric variables). Reliability analysis employed both ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ measures. A two-way random effects intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) model examined the relative agreement between parametric and log-transformed dependent variables, while measurement consistency was established from effect size (ES) and ICC 95% confidence interval results [31,41,42]. Variables were considered strong when ICC ≥ 0.90 [43], the lower-bound level of the ICC 95% confidence interval (ICC_Lower) > 0.80 [31] and Cohen’s ES < 0.50 (moderate effect) [44]. Moderate reliability occurred if ICC ranged from 0.80 to 0.89, ICC_Lower ≥ 0.70 and ES < 0.50, while ‘weak’ reliability occurred if the previous criteria were not met. Within-participant variation in dependent variables were also examined using typical error (TE) [41], however these statistics were not included in reliability indexing. All statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 23.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Results for control variables of contact time (CT; F _{(1.3, 3.9)} = 2.14; p > 0.05), flight time (FT; F _{(1.7, 5.0)} = 2.84; p > 0.05) and HopFreq (F _{(1.8, 5.3)} = 0.56; p > 0.05; Table 1) revealed no significant difference between means for these variables across inter-day testing bouts. Reliability analysis showed strong agreement for variables of CT and FT (ICC = 0.95–0.97; ICC_Lower = 0.81–0.92; ES = 0.01–0.09) at 1.5 and 3.0 Hz with moderate reliability evident at 2.2 Hz (ICC = 0.94; ICC_Lower = 0.79–0.92; ES = 0.10). Across intra-day testing bouts, analysis revealed no significant difference in CT (F _{(2, 18)} = 0.10; p > 0.05), FT (F _{(2, 18)} = 0.29; p > 0.05) and HopFreq (F _{(1.6, 43.6)} = 1.24; p > 0.05) when measured six-hours apart. The high ICC’s (0.92–0.98), moderate-to-high ICC_Lower coefficients (0.82–0.96) and low ES (0.04–0.13), suggest ‘strong’ intra-day agreement for variables of FT and CT. Despite moderate-to-strong reliability indices for FT and CT variables, HopFreq exhibited weak consistency throughout.

Download:

Table 1. Descriptive and reliability statistics (mean ± s) for control variables of CT, FT, and HopFreq recorded between inter- and intra-day testing bouts during hopping within a SBS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664.t001

Friedman’s test revealed no significant change in k_leg (χ² (5) = 0.68–10.23; p > 0.05) across Day_1, Day_2 and Day_3 testing bouts at any HopFreq. Despite exhibiting little change between days, reliability indices showed k_leg exhibited weak-to-moderate consistency (ICC = 0.71–0.89; ICC_Lower = 0.29–0.73; ES = 0.08–0.26) between inter-day bouts across all HopFreq (Table 2). Examination of kinematic and kinetic variables (Table 3) shows limits in k_leg measurement agreement originated from limits in F_{z max} and ΔLeg_L measurement consistency. Limits in k_leg measurement agreement, were accompanied by weak consistency in k_knee and k_hip between Day_1, Day_2 and Day_3 across all HopFreq (ICC = 0.62–0.84; ICC_Lower = 0.02–0.61; ES = 0.10–0.70). Only k_ankle exhibited moderate-to-strong consistency at slower HopFreq (ICC = 0.91–0.94; ICC_Lower = 0.76–0.83; ES = 0.17–0.18). Examination of kinematic and kinetic variables (Table 3) shows that despite limits to k_knee and k_hip at 1.5 Hz, participants exhibited weak-to-strong consistency for joint kinetic and kinematic variables. At 2.2 and 3.0 Hz, limits in k_knee and k_hip resulted from weak-to-moderate agreement for joint kinetics and kinematics. Data show that strong consistency in k_ankle measures at 1.5 Hz was accompanied by strong consistency in M_{ankle max} and Δϴ_ankle. Limits in k_ankle measurement agreement at 2.2 and 3.0 Hz were accompanied by varied consistency in ankle kinematic and kinetic measures. Joint kinetics and kinematics showed no change (p > 0.05) between inter-day test bouts at any hopping frequency.

Download:

Table 2. Descriptive and reliability statistics (mean ± s) for variables of k_leg and k_joint recorded between inter- and intra-day testing bouts during hopping within a SBS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664.t002

Download:

Table 3. Descriptive (mean ± s) and reliability statistics for kinetic and kinematic variables recorded between inter-day testing bouts during hopping within a SBS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664.t003

Examination of intra-day testing comparisons (Table 2) showed no change in k_leg between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset (χ² (3) = 0.60–3.19; p > 0.05). Despite this, k_leg measures exhibited weak consistency at 1.5 and 2.2 Hz HopFreq (ICC = 0.59–0.86; ICC_Lower = 0.09–0.70; ES = 0.11–0.35) and moderate consistency at 3.0 Hz (ICC = 0.87; ICC_Lower = 0.71; ES = 0.17). Limits in k_leg reliability originated from strong and weak consistency in F_{z max} and ΔLeg_L respectively at all HopFreq. Repeated measure ANOVA results showed no change in k_joint variables between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset (F _{(1.1, 22.6)} = 0.17–1.07; p > 0.05). Despite this, k_knee and k_hip exhibited weak-to-moderate consistency between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset (ICC = 0.29–0.89; ICC_Lower = 0.00–0.72; ES = 0.02–0.50). In contrast, k_ankle exhibited strong consistency at 3.0 Hz but weak consistency at other hopping frequencies. Examination of kinematic and kinetic data (Table 4) showed limits in k_joint reliability originated from largely weak-to-moderate consistency in joint kinematic and kinetic inputs between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset. Limits in consistency in kinematic and kinetic inputs occurred despite no change in these data between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset testing bouts (χ² (3) = 0.98–3.86; p > 0.05).

Download:

Table 4. Descriptive (mean ± s) and reliability statistics for kinetic and kinematic variables recorded between intra-day testing bouts during hopping within a SBS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225664.t004

Discussion

SBS are used to examine SSC function under controlled conditions. Sled design regulates eccentric loading and limits extraneous movement to improve landing and measurement consistency. During overground hopping and running, k_leg has demonstrated good reliability [22,23]. In contrast, k_joint measures have demonstrated limited consistency. The reliability of k_leg and k_joint while hopping within an SBS had not been examined. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the inter- and intra-day reliability of k_leg and k_joint achieved during hopping within an SBS.

Similar to the findings of Hobara and colleagues [21] k_leg and k_joint increased with increases in HopFreq in the present study. Values of 13.9–28.9 kN.m^-1 have been reported for k_leg during natural hopping conditions on different surfaces and at different frequencies [22,23,30,45,46]. In addition, values of 6.9–12.0 Nm.deg^-1 have been reported for k_ankle during natural hopping [45]. In the present study, stiffness values are lower than reported during natural hopping [22,23]. This can be explained by the orientation of the frame of the SBS (i.e. 30° to the horizontal) which reduces (half) the effect of gravitational acceleration [12,19]. Therefore, lower ground reaction forces (i.e. F_{z max}) are expected in the present study relative to published reports on overground hopping. This is supported by the work of Harrison et al. [25] and Flanagan and Harrison [19] who reported lower values for k_leg during DJ and RBJ tasks (3.4–8.5 kN.m^-1) performed within the current SBS, relative to natural conditions. The stiffness data recorded during the present study are in line with previous data reported for SSC tasks performed within an inclined-SBS.

Hobara et al. [21] showed increases in k_leg with increases in HopFreq. Thus, regulation of HopFreq between testing bouts was important to reliability analysis. In the current study HopFreq displayed weak-to-moderate consistency across all trials despite CT and FT variables showing strong agreement at all HopFreq between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset. Inter-day comparisons showed strong consistency for CT throughout. In contrast, FT exhibited strong agreement at 1.5 and 3.0 Hz but moderate consistency at 2.2 Hz. Hopkins and colleagues [41] suggested low ICC’s occur in situations where between participant variation is low for a given variable. In the present study, HopFreq was regulated to within 5% of the target frequency. Thus, low levels of variability may have produced spurious reliability indices in HopFreq and in FT measures during hopping at 2.2 Hz. The low TE (0.01–0.02) and ES (≤ 0.31) for CT, FT and HopFreq support this. Thus, HopFreq was controlled adequately throughout.

Despite regulation of HopFreq in the present study, k_leg exhibited moderate reliability at 1.5 Hz and weak reliability at 2.2 and 3.0 Hz (ICC = 0.59–0.89) between inter-day test bouts. These reliability indexes were accompanied by strong consistency for k_ankle at 1.5 Hz only. Remaining k_joint variables demonstrated weak-to-moderate agreement between Day_1, Day_2 and Day_3 testing bouts. Between Day_3 and Day_3_Offset, k_leg exhibited moderate reliability at 3.0 Hz but weak consistency at the other frequencies. The moderate index for k_leg at 3.0 Hz was accompanied by strong consistency for k_ankle. Variables of k_knee and k_hip however, exhibited weak-to-moderate consistency throughout. Examination of kinematic and kinetic inputs (Tables 3 and 4) showed that limits in k_leg reliability occurred due to limits in ΔLeg_L reliability, while F_{z max} exhibited moderate-to-strong consistency. The present data also showed that limits in k_joint measurement agreement resulted from inconsistencies in M_{joint max} and Δϴ_joint at the highest hopping frequencies (2.2 and 3.0 Hz).

While the present study did not include a control condition, previous work in our lab examined the reliability of k_leg and k_joint measures in overground hopping [22]. This study employed the same methodology and used physically active participants consistent with the current work. Our work showed strong agreement (ICC = 0.95–0.98) for k_leg and k_ankle measures at different hopping frequencies [22]. In contrast, k_knee and k_hip exhibited weak-to-moderate agreement. Given our previous findings, that many stiffness variables showed weak-to-moderate agreement in the present study is surprising. Particularly since the primary function of the current inclined-SBS is to limit extraneous upper body movement to enhance landing and measurement consistency during SSC tasks [8,19].

It is understood that in biological measurement, observed scores are composed of a true score and additional error [42]. Weir [42] suggests that errors in measurement data result from instrumentation errors associated with equipment used, in addition to participant / tester error, modelling error and biological variability. In the context of the current work, instrumentation errors arise from equipment (force plate and video) use and protocol adherence between testing bouts. It is important to note that participants were instructed refrain from physical activity prior to data collection. Furthermore, force plate and video equipment were calibrated as per the manufacturer’s guidelines prior to each data collection period. In addition, equipment set-up and protocols used were consistent with published works showing strong reliability for k_leg and k_ankle during overground hopping [22]. Consequently, deteriorations in measurement consistency relative to published reports are not due to differences in testing protocols between studies.

Of additional concern to the reliability of k_leg and k_joint scores is error derived from the use of mathematical models. Whittlesey and Hammill [47] noted that models are sensitive to the number of model components. Thus, small errors present early in the modelling process will propagate by the end of the simulation. This suggests that modelling errors will increase as calculations progress from distal to proximal joints. As k_joint is the ratio of changes in M_joint and ϴ_joint, it is clear that errors in M_joint (and k_knee and k_hip) measures will increase as inverse dynamics analysis progresses from distal to proximal joints. It is important to consider that while these errors will influence k_joint consistency, they are unlikely to influence k_leg in the present work. In addition, as modelling procedures employed in the current work are consistent with previous works [22], it is unlikely that differences in measurement consistency between the current and previous works result from modelling errors.

Considering biological variability, our previous work on overground hopping noted the existence of k_leg as an attractor state [22] where participants are drawn to the manipulation of leg compression (seen by variable k_joint or ΔLeg_L) to maintain a consistent k_leg under variable landing conditions [9,45]. These works also showed that stiffness variables were accompanied by mostly strong consistency for F_{z max} and ΔLeg_L variables. In the present study, it must be considered that while the reliability of F_{z max} was strong, the reliability of ΔLeg_L was weak-to-moderate across all testing bouts. As a result, the k_leg exhibited weak-to-moderate consistency throughout. It is therefore difficult to establish a consistent outcome variable (i.e. attractor state) that participants are trying to regulate. Furthermore, considering limits in the reliability of kinematic and kinetic variables measured, and the limited pattern to the nature of this reliability, we feel that our data does not support the notion that limits in reliability are due to kinematic variability to achieve consistent outcomes.

It is important to consider the novelty of the hopping task and its impact on the present data. Our previous work showed that familiarizing participants with testing procedures prior to data collection enhanced measurement reliability relative to earlier reports [23]. In the present study however, participants completed a familiarization session prior to data collection. Thus, acquainting participants with procedures did not benefit the consistency of hopping dynamics within the current SBS. One reason for this is likely the design of the current SBS. The design of the current SBS requires participants to adopt a flexed torso position while secured to it. This novel hopping position would alter the functional length of lower limb musculature compared to upright hopping, which will have impacted participants’ ability to achieve consistent hopping dynamics. In addition, the mass of the chair of the current SBS was 19.6 kg. The added mass may have made it difficult for participants to achieve consistency in their hopping patterns. This is partly supported by the work of Kramer et al. [48]. The authors demonstrated that participants achieved almost natural reactive jumps following this four-week period (i.e. 12 sessions). While the instructions regarding landing dynamics differed from the current study, the design of the lightweight sled (5 kg) allowed participants to adopt natural movement patterns [27,48]. Although the authors did not report reliability indices for variables measured, the changes seen (38% increase) following four weeks of training (i.e. familiarizing) suggest the performance of SSC tasks within an SBS to be a novel task requiring extensive participant familiarization. The practicalities of including multiple familiarization sessions prior to data collection must also be considered.

Considering the lack of reliability evident in kinematics, kinetics and stiffness variables measured, it is appropriate to accept the null hypothesis. Limiting extraneous upper body movement by using an SBS during single-leg hopping did not improve the reliability of k_leg and k_joint measures relative to previous reports on overground hopping. In fact, use of the current SBS reduced consistency of stiffness measures relative to previous reports on natural conditions.

Conclusions

To summarize, the present data showed weak-to-moderate reliability for all stiffness measures during hopping using the current SBS. This was due largely to inconsistencies in leg compression (ΔLeg_L). Thus, reducing extraneous upper body movement using the current SBS did not encourage consistent stiffness regulation. In fact, hopping within the current inclined-SBS had adverse effects on measurement consistency relative to published reports on overground hopping. Limits in the consistency of stiffness measures may be due to constraints imposed by restricting upper body movement, which introduced novelty to the single-leg hopping task. A single familiarization session was therefore inadequate to achieve consistent landing mechanics. The influence of sled design on the current findings must also be considered, with chair mass and orientation likely making it difficult for participants to achieve consistent hopping patterns. Researchers should consider these findings and endeavour to construct a light-weight system with a chair orientation that replicates the functional length of the muscle-tendon units driving the SSC task being analysed.

References

1. Komi PV, Nicol C. Stretch-shortening cycle of muscle function. In: Neuromuscular Aspects of Sport Performance. 2011. p. 15–31.
2. Kopper B, Csende Z, Sáfár S, Hortobágyi T, Tihanyi J. Muscle activation history at different vertical jumps and its influence on vertical velocity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23(1):132–9. pmid:23107911
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Komi PV, Gollhofer A. Stretch reflexes can have an important role in force enhancement during SSC exercise. J Appl Biomech. 1997 Nov;13(4):451–60.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Bosco C, Ito A, Komi P, Luhtanen P, Rahkila P, Rusko H, et al. Neuromuscular function and mechanical efficiency of human leg extensor muscles during jumping exercises. Acta Physiol Scand. 1982;114:543–50. pmid:7136782
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Komi PV. Relevance of in vivo force measurements to human biomechanics. J Biomech. 1990;23(SUPPL. 1):23–34.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Gollhofer A, Komi PV, Fujitsuka N, Miyashita M. Fatigue during stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Int J Sports Med. 1987;8:38–47. pmid:3583519
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Kuitunen S, Komi P V, Kyröläinen H. Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(1):166–73. pmid:11782663
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Harrison AJ, Gaffney SD. Effects of muscle damage on stretch-shortening cycle function and muscle stiffness control. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:771–6. pmid:15574081
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Hobara H, Inoue K, Gomi K, Sakamoto M, Muraoka T, I S. Continuous change in spring-mass characteristics during a 400 m sprint. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(2):256–61. pmid:19342299
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Debenham JR, Gibson WI, Travers MJ, Campbell AC, Allison GT. Modulation of stretch-shortening-cycle behavior with eccentric loading of triceps surae: A possible therapeutic mechanism. J Sport Rehabil. 2017 Mar;26(2):151–8. pmid:27632850
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Paavolainen LM, Nummela AT, Rusko HK. Neuromuscular characteristics and muscle power as determinants of 5-km running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31(1):124–30. pmid:9927020
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Comyns T.M., Harrison AJ, Hennessy L, Jensen RL. Identifying the optimal resistive load for complex training in male rugby players. Sport Biomech. 2007;6:59–70.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Hannah J, Hillier MJ. Applied Mechanics. England: Longman; 1995.
14. Zatsiorsky V, Prilutsky B. Biomechanics of Skeletal Muscles. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics; 2012.
15. Arampatzis A, De Monte G, Karamanidis K, Morey-Klapsing G, Stafilidis S, Brüggemann G-P. Influence of the muscle-tendon unit’s mechanical and morphological properties on running economy. J Exp Biol. 2006;209(17):3345–57.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Dumke CL, Pfaffenroth CM, McBride JM, McCauley GO. Relationship between muscle strength, power and stiffness and running economy in trained male runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(2):249–61. pmid:20625197
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Pruyn EC, Watsford M, Murphy A. The relationship between lower-body stiffness and dynamic performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39(10):1144–50. pmid:25007238
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Hamill J, Moses M, Seay J. Lower extremity joint stiffness in runners with low back pain. Res Sport Med. 2009;17(4):260–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Flanagan EP, Harrison AJ. Muscle dynamics differences between legs in healthy adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:67–72. pmid:17313262
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Hobara H, Kanosue K, Suzuki S. Changes in muscle activity with increase in leg stiffness during hopping. Neurosci Lett. 2007;418(1):55–9. pmid:17367931
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Hobara H, Inoue K, Muraoka T, Omuro K, Sakamoto M, Kanosue K. Leg stiffness adjustment for a range of hopping frequencies in humans. J Biomech. 2010;43(3):506–11. pmid:19879582
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Diggin D, Anderson R, Harrison AJ. An examination of the true reliability of lower limb stiffness measures during overground hopping. J Appl Biomech. 2016;32(3):278–86. pmid:26745354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Joseph CW, Bradshaw EJ, Kemp J, Clark RA. The interday reliability of ankle, knee, leg, and vertical musculoskeletal stiffness during hopping and overground running. J Appl Biomech. 2013 Aug;29(4):386–94. pmid:22923423
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Van Emmerik REA, Miller R & Hammill J. Dynamical systems analysis of coordination. In: Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2014. p. 291–316.
25. Harrison AJ, Keane SP, Coglan J. Force-velocity relationship and stretch-shortening cycle function in sprint and endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):473–9. pmid:15320647
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Kyröläinen H, Komi PV. Mechanical efficiency of stretch-shorten cycle exercise. In: Komi PV, editor. Neuromuscular Aspects of Sports Performance. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 103–14.
27. Kramer A, Ritzmann R, Gollhofer A, Gehring D, Gruber M. A new sledge jump system that allows almost natural reactive jumps. J Biomech. 2010;43(14):2672–7. pmid:20643409
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Komi PV, Kaneko M, Aura O. EMG activity of the leg extensor muscles with special reference to mechanical efficiency in concentric and eccentric exercise. Int J Sports Med. 1987 Mar 14;8(S1):S22–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Furlong L-AM, Harrison AJ. Reliability and consistency of plantarflexor stretch-shortening cycle function using an adapted force sledge apparatus. Physiol Meas. 2013 Apr 1;34(4):437–48. pmid:23524578
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Maloney SJ, Fletcher IM. Lower limb stiffness testing in athletic performance: A critical review. Sport Biomech. 2018 May 16;1–22.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sport Med. 1998;26(4):217–38.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. McLachlan KA, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML, Rees S. The interday reliability of leg and ankle musculotendinous stiffness measures. J Appl Biomech. 2006;22(4):296–304. pmid:17293626
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Granata KP, Wilson SE, Padua DA. Gender differences in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part II. Quantification of leg stiffness during functional hopping tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12(2):127–35. pmid:11955985
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Padua DA, Arnold BL, Perrin DH, Gansneder BM, Carcia CR, Granata KP. Fatigue, vertical leg stiffness, and stiffness control strategies in males and females. J Athl Train. 2006;41(3):294–304. pmid:17043698
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Whittlesey SN & Robertson G. Two-dimensional inverse dynamics. In: Robertson G, Caldwell GE, Hammill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN, editors. Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL.: (Human Kinetics); 2014.
36. Winter D. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Canada.; 2009.
37. Stefanyshyn D, Nigg B. Contribution of the lower extremity joints to mechanical energy in running vertical jumps and running long jumps. J Sport Sci. 1998;16:177–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Dempster W. Space requirements of the seated operator, geometrical, kinematic, and mechanical aspects of the body with special reference to the limbs. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; 1955.
39. Arampatzis A, Brüggemann G-P, Metzler V. The effect of speed on leg stiffness and joint kinematics in human racing. J Biomech. 1999;32:1349–53. pmid:10569714
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Coleman DR, Cannavan D, Horne S, Blazevich AJ. Leg stiffness in human running: Comparison of estimates derived from previously published models to direct kinematic-kinetic measures. J Biomech. 2012;45(11):1987–91. pmid:22682258
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sport Med. 2000;30:1–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40. pmid:15705040
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Vincent W, Weir JP. Statistics in kinesiology. Fourth. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics; 1994.
44. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9. pmid:19565683
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Farley CT, Houdijk HH, Van Strien C, Louie M. Mechanism of leg stiffness adjustment for hopping on surfaces of different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85(3):1044–55. pmid:9729582
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Farley CT, Morgenroth DC. Leg stiffness primarily depends on ankle stiffness during human hopping. J Biomech. 1999;32(3):267–73. pmid:10093026
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Whittlesey SN, Hamill J. Computer simulation of human movement. In: Robertson G, Caldwell GE, Hammill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN, editors. Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL.: (Human Kinetics); 2014. p. 233–46.
48. Kramer A, Ritzmann R, Gruber M, Gollhofer A. Four weeks of training in a sledge jump system improved the jump pattern to almost natural reactive jumps. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(1):285–93. pmid:21544569
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Komi PV, Nicol C. Stretch-shortening cycle of muscle function. In: Neuromuscular Aspects of Sport Performance. 2011. p. 15–31.

[ref2] 2. Kopper B, Csende Z, Sáfár S, Hortobágyi T, Tihanyi J. Muscle activation history at different vertical jumps and its influence on vertical velocity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23(1):132–9. pmid:23107911
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] PubMed/NCBI

[5] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Komi PV, Gollhofer A. Stretch reflexes can have an important role in force enhancement during SSC exercise. J Appl Biomech. 1997 Nov;13(4):451–60.
View Article
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Bosco C, Ito A, Komi P, Luhtanen P, Rahkila P, Rusko H, et al. Neuromuscular function and mechanical efficiency of human leg extensor muscles during jumping exercises. Acta Physiol Scand. 1982;114:543–50. pmid:7136782
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Komi PV. Relevance of in vivo force measurements to human biomechanics. J Biomech. 1990;23(SUPPL. 1):23–34.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Gollhofer A, Komi PV, Fujitsuka N, Miyashita M. Fatigue during stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Int J Sports Med. 1987;8:38–47. pmid:3583519
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Kuitunen S, Komi P V, Kyröläinen H. Knee and ankle joint stiffness in sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(1):166–73. pmid:11782663
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Harrison AJ, Gaffney SD. Effects of muscle damage on stretch-shortening cycle function and muscle stiffness control. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:771–6. pmid:15574081
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] PubMed/NCBI

[27] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Hobara H, Inoue K, Gomi K, Sakamoto M, Muraoka T, I S. Continuous change in spring-mass characteristics during a 400 m sprint. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(2):256–61. pmid:19342299
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] PubMed/NCBI

[31] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Debenham JR, Gibson WI, Travers MJ, Campbell AC, Allison GT. Modulation of stretch-shortening-cycle behavior with eccentric loading of triceps surae: A possible therapeutic mechanism. J Sport Rehabil. 2017 Mar;26(2):151–8. pmid:27632850
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] PubMed/NCBI

[35] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Paavolainen LM, Nummela AT, Rusko HK. Neuromuscular characteristics and muscle power as determinants of 5-km running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31(1):124–30. pmid:9927020
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Comyns T.M., Harrison AJ, Hennessy L, Jensen RL. Identifying the optimal resistive load for complex training in male rugby players. Sport Biomech. 2007;6:59–70.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Hannah J, Hillier MJ. Applied Mechanics. England: Longman; 1995.

[ref14] 14. Zatsiorsky V, Prilutsky B. Biomechanics of Skeletal Muscles. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics; 2012.

[ref15] 15. Arampatzis A, De Monte G, Karamanidis K, Morey-Klapsing G, Stafilidis S, Brüggemann G-P. Influence of the muscle-tendon unit’s mechanical and morphological properties on running economy. J Exp Biol. 2006;209(17):3345–57.
View Article
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Dumke CL, Pfaffenroth CM, McBride JM, McCauley GO. Relationship between muscle strength, power and stiffness and running economy in trained male runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(2):249–61. pmid:20625197
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Pruyn EC, Watsford M, Murphy A. The relationship between lower-body stiffness and dynamic performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39(10):1144–50. pmid:25007238
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Hamill J, Moses M, Seay J. Lower extremity joint stiffness in runners with low back pain. Res Sport Med. 2009;17(4):260–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Flanagan EP, Harrison AJ. Muscle dynamics differences between legs in healthy adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:67–72. pmid:17313262
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Hobara H, Kanosue K, Suzuki S. Changes in muscle activity with increase in leg stiffness during hopping. Neurosci Lett. 2007;418(1):55–9. pmid:17367931
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] PubMed/NCBI

[66] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Hobara H, Inoue K, Muraoka T, Omuro K, Sakamoto M, Kanosue K. Leg stiffness adjustment for a range of hopping frequencies in humans. J Biomech. 2010;43(3):506–11. pmid:19879582
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Diggin D, Anderson R, Harrison AJ. An examination of the true reliability of lower limb stiffness measures during overground hopping. J Appl Biomech. 2016;32(3):278–86. pmid:26745354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Joseph CW, Bradshaw EJ, Kemp J, Clark RA. The interday reliability of ankle, knee, leg, and vertical musculoskeletal stiffness during hopping and overground running. J Appl Biomech. 2013 Aug;29(4):386–94. pmid:22923423
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Van Emmerik REA, Miller R & Hammill J. Dynamical systems analysis of coordination. In: Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2014. p. 291–316.

[ref25] 25. Harrison AJ, Keane SP, Coglan J. Force-velocity relationship and stretch-shortening cycle function in sprint and endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):473–9. pmid:15320647
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Kyröläinen H, Komi PV. Mechanical efficiency of stretch-shorten cycle exercise. In: Komi PV, editor. Neuromuscular Aspects of Sports Performance. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 103–14.

[ref27] 27. Kramer A, Ritzmann R, Gollhofer A, Gehring D, Gruber M. A new sledge jump system that allows almost natural reactive jumps. J Biomech. 2010;43(14):2672–7. pmid:20643409
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Komi PV, Kaneko M, Aura O. EMG activity of the leg extensor muscles with special reference to mechanical efficiency in concentric and eccentric exercise. Int J Sports Med. 1987 Mar 14;8(S1):S22–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Furlong L-AM, Harrison AJ. Reliability and consistency of plantarflexor stretch-shortening cycle function using an adapted force sledge apparatus. Physiol Meas. 2013 Apr 1;34(4):437–48. pmid:23524578
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Maloney SJ, Fletcher IM. Lower limb stiffness testing in athletic performance: A critical review. Sport Biomech. 2018 May 16;1–22.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sport Med. 1998;26(4):217–38.
View Article
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. McLachlan KA, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML, Rees S. The interday reliability of leg and ankle musculotendinous stiffness measures. J Appl Biomech. 2006;22(4):296–304. pmid:17293626
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Granata KP, Wilson SE, Padua DA. Gender differences in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part II. Quantification of leg stiffness during functional hopping tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12(2):127–35. pmid:11955985
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Padua DA, Arnold BL, Perrin DH, Gansneder BM, Carcia CR, Granata KP. Fatigue, vertical leg stiffness, and stiffness control strategies in males and females. J Athl Train. 2006;41(3):294–304. pmid:17043698
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Whittlesey SN & Robertson G. Two-dimensional inverse dynamics. In: Robertson G, Caldwell GE, Hammill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN, editors. Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL.: (Human Kinetics); 2014.

[ref36] 36. Winter D. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Canada.; 2009.

[ref37] 37. Stefanyshyn D, Nigg B. Contribution of the lower extremity joints to mechanical energy in running vertical jumps and running long jumps. J Sport Sci. 1998;16:177–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Dempster W. Space requirements of the seated operator, geometrical, kinematic, and mechanical aspects of the body with special reference to the limbs. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; 1955.

[ref39] 39. Arampatzis A, Brüggemann G-P, Metzler V. The effect of speed on leg stiffness and joint kinematics in human racing. J Biomech. 1999;32:1349–53. pmid:10569714
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Coleman DR, Cannavan D, Horne S, Blazevich AJ. Leg stiffness in human running: Comparison of estimates derived from previously published models to direct kinematic-kinetic measures. J Biomech. 2012;45(11):1987–91. pmid:22682258
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sport Med. 2000;30:1–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40. pmid:15705040
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Vincent W, Weir JP. Statistics in kinesiology. Fourth. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics; 1994.

[ref44] 44. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9. pmid:19565683
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Farley CT, Houdijk HH, Van Strien C, Louie M. Mechanism of leg stiffness adjustment for hopping on surfaces of different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85(3):1044–55. pmid:9729582
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Farley CT, Morgenroth DC. Leg stiffness primarily depends on ankle stiffness during human hopping. J Biomech. 1999;32(3):267–73. pmid:10093026
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Whittlesey SN, Hamill J. Computer simulation of human movement. In: Robertson G, Caldwell GE, Hammill J, Kamen G, Whittlesey SN, editors. Research Methods in Biomechanics. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL.: (Human Kinetics); 2014. p. 233–46.

[ref48] 48. Kramer A, Ritzmann R, Gruber M, Gollhofer A. Four weeks of training in a sledge jump system improved the jump pattern to almost natural reactive jumps. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(1):285–93. pmid:21544569
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] PubMed/NCBI

[152] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participant characteristics

Experimental procedures

Data processing

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

References