Analysis of functional hop test with dual task on injured and uninjured athletes

Abstract

Purpose: Maladaptive neuroplasticity may develop after injury. However, most of the test applications in the return to the sport process mainly focus on the motor end of the sensorimotor system. In this study, we aimed to examine the performance outputs of the functional hop tests with the dual task methodology. Methods: Triple hop for distance (THD), crossover hop for distance (CHD) and 6-meter hop for timed (6MHT) tests were done. For the cognitive task the backward digit span test of the Wechsler intelligence scale was preferred. Nineteen athletes with a history of unilateral lower extremity injuries were assigned to the previously injured group (PIG), and 20 athletes with no previous injury were assigned to the control group (CG). Results: There were no significant differences between the results of the cognitive task levels and Mini Mental State Examination scores of the athletes in our study (p>0.05). PIG athletes showed significantly lower jump performances compared to CG athletes; in the injured extremity side, differences were found between the groups' THD, CHD, and 6MHT values during a single task (p<0.05) and differences were also found between the THD and CHD values of the groups during the dual task (p<0.05). In the non-injured extremity side, differences were found between the THD, CHD and 6MHT values of the groups during a single task (p<0.05) and differences were also found between the groups' THD, CHD, and 6MHT values during dual task (p<0.05). Conclusion: Results of this study indicated that some functional/cognitive deficits were still not recovered or/and differentiated neuromuscular control that may develop after injury. The dual task should be preferred during functional performance tests due to its beneficial contributions in the evaluation of athletes.

Keywords

• Dual task
• Functional hop tests
• Sport injuries

Yaralanma geçmişi olan ve olmayan sporcularda fonksiyonel sıçrama testlerinin ikili görev ile analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Yaralanma sonrası mal-adaptif nöro-plastisite gelişebilir. Ancak spora dönüş sürecindeki test uygulamalarının çoğu, ağırlıklı olarak duyu-motor sistemin motor ucuna odaklanır. Bu çalışmada ikili görev metodolojisi ile ölçüldüğünde fonksiyonel sıçrama testlerinin performans çıktılarının incelenmesi amaçlandı. Yöntem: Üç adım sıçrama (Triple Hop Distance- THD), çapraz sıçrama (Crossover Hop Distance-CHD) ve 6-metre sıçrama (6-m Hop for Timed-6MHT) testleri yapıldı. Bilişsel görev için Wechsler zekâ ölçeğinin geriye doğru rakam aralığı testi tercih edildi. Tek taraflı alt ekstremite yaralanması öyküsü olan 19 sporcu daha önce yaralanması olan gruba (PIG) ve daha önce yaralanması olmayan 20 sporcu kontrol grubuna (CG) ayrıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmamızda sporcuların bilişsel görev düzeyleri ve Mini Mental Durum değerlendirmesi puanları arasında anlamlı fark yoktu (p>0.05). PIG sporcuları, CG sporcularına kıyasla önemli ölçüde daha düşük atlama performansları gösterdi; yaralanmalı ekstremite tarafında grupların tek görev sırasındaki THD, CHD ve 6MHT değerleri arasında farklılık bulundu (p<0,05) ve ikili görev sırasında grupların THD ve CHD değerleri arasında da farklılıklar bulundu (p<0,05). Yaralanmayan ekstremite tarafında grupların tek görev sırasındaki THD, CHD ve 6MHT değerleri arasında farklılık bulundu (p<0,05) ve ikili görev esnasında grupların THD, CHD ve 6MHT değerleri arasında da farklar bulundu (p<0,05). Sonuç: Bu çalışma, yaralanma sonrası bazı fonksiyonel ve/veya kognitif eksikliklerin henüz düzelmediğini ve/veya yaralanma sonrası gelişebilecek farklılaşmış nöromüsküler kontrolün olduğunu gösterdi. Sporcuların değerlendirilmesinde faydalı katkıları nedeniyle ikili görevin fonksiyonel performans testleri sırasında tercih edilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• İkili Görev
• Fonksiyonel sıçrama testleri
• Spor yaralanmaları.

References

1. Beynnon BD, Ryder SH, Konradsen L, et al. The effect of anterior cruciate ligament trauma and bracing on knee proprioception. Am J Sport Med. 1999;27:150-155.
2. Chomiak J, Junge A, Peterson L, et al. Severe injuries in football players. Am J Sport Med. 2000;28(5 Suppl):S58-68.
3. Needle AR, Lepley AS, Grooms DR. Central nervous system adaptation after ligamentous injury: a summary of theories, evidence, and clinical interpretation. Sports Med. 2017;47:1271-1288.
4. Buschman TJ, Kastner S. From behavior to neural dynamics: an integrated theory of attention. Neuron. 2015;88:127-144.
5. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Attentional demands and postural control: the effect of sensory context. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M10-16.
6. Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human Performance. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, Ca. 1967;5:7-16.
7. Anderson JR. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychol Rev. 1982;89:369-406.
8. Schneider W, Fisk AD. Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. Adv. Psychol. 1983;12:119-143.

9. Schücker L, Hagemann N, Strauss B, et al. The effect of attentional focus on running economy. J Sport Sci. 2009;27:1241-1248.
10. Doyon J, Benali H. Reorganization and plasticity in the adult brain during learning of motor skills. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005;15:161-167.
11. Seidel O, Carius D, Kenville R, et al. Motor learning in a complex balance task and associated neuroplasticity: a comparison between endurance athletes and nonathletes. J. Neurophysiol. 2017;118:1849-1860.
12. Dunst B, Benedek M, Jauk E, et al. Neural efficiency as a function of task demands. Intelligence. 2014;42:22-30.
13. Dingenen B, Gokeler A. Optimization of the return-to-sport paradigm after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a critical step back to move forward. Sports Med. 2017;47:1487-1500.
14. Gray R. Differences in attentional focus associated with recovery from sports injury: Does injury induce an internal focus? J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37:607-616.
15. Negahban H, Hadian MR, Salavati M, et al. The effects of dual-tasking on postural control in people with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament injury. Gait Posture. 2009;30:477-481.
16. Mitchell AJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): an update on its diagnostic validity for cognitive disorders. In: Larner, A. (eds) Cognitive Screening Instruments. Springer, London. 2013.
17. Ward LC. Prediction of verbal, performance, and full scale IQs from seven subtests of the WAIS‐R. J Clin Psychol. 1990;46:436-440.
18. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW, et al. Neuropsychological assessment: Oxford University Press, USA; 2004.
19. Meyers JE, Zellinger MM, Kockler T, et al. A validated seven-subtest short form for the WAIS-IV. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2013;20:249-256.
20. Pilgrim BM, Meyers JE, Bayless J, et al. Validity of the Ward seven-subtest WAIS-III short form in a neuropsychological population. Appl Neuropsychol. 1999;6:243-246.
21. Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mangine RE. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sport Med. 1991;19:513-518.
22. Greenberger HB, Paterno MV. Relationship of knee extensor strength and hopping test performance in the assessment of lower extremity function. J Orthop Sport Phys. 1995;22:202-206.
23. Oleksy L, Krolikowska A, Mika A, et al. A compound hop index for assessing soccer players’ performance. J Clin Med. 2022;11:255.
24. Millikan N, Grooms DR, Hoffman B, et al. The development and reliability of 4 clinical neurocognitive single-leg hop tests: implications for return to activity decision-making. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28:536-544.
25. Simon JE, Millikan N, Yom J, et al. Neurocognitive challenged hops reduced functional performance relative to traditional hop testing. Phys Ther Sport. 2020;41:97-102.
26. Smeets A, Verschueren S, Staes F, et al. Athletes with an ACL reconstruction show a different neuromuscular response to environmental challenges compared to uninjured athletes. Gait Posture. 2021;83:44-51.
27. Masters R, Maxwell J. The theory of reinvestment. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;1:160-183.
28. Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1973.
29. Broadbent D. Perception and Communication. Pergamon Press, London. Ref ID. 1958;68.
30. Wickens CD. Attention and Skilled Performance. In DH Holding (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
31. Wulf G, McNevin N, Shea CH. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q J Exp Psychol-A. 2001;54:1143-1154.
32. Beilock SL, Carr TH, MacMahon C, et al. When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:6-16.
33. Seidler RD, Bernard JA, Burutolu TB, et al. Motor control and aging: links to age-related brain structural, functional, and biochemical effects. Neurosci Biobehav R. 2010;34:721-733.
34. Burcal CJ, Needle AR, Custer L, et al. The effects of cognitive loading on motor behavior in injured individuals: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2019:1-21.
35. Beilock SL, Wierenga SA, Carr TH. Expertise, attention, and memory in sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task performance and episodic memory. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2002;55:1211-1240.