Biomedical subjects

J A Onate

Publications and source records attributed to J A Onate.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Augmented feedback reduces jump landing forces.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, experimental design using a 1-way ANCOVA to determine the influence of various forms of feedback on jump landing forces. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of augmented feedback versus sensory feedback on the reduction of jump landing forces. BACKGROUND: Several investigators have reported an increased risk of lower extremity injury associated with landing from a jump. METHODS AND MEASURES: Nonimpaired college students (N=63) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 feedback groups. Subjects were instructed to perform maximal vertical jumps onto a force plate for 3 testing sessions (baseline, 2-minute post-test, and 1-week post-test). Three feedback groups (augmented, sensory, and control I) were tested during all 3 testing sessions, while a fourth feedback group (control II) was evaluated at only 2 sessions (baseline and 1-week post-test). Subjects in the augmented feedback condition were provided information via video and verbal analysis of how to land softer. Subjects in the sensory feedback condition were asked to use the experience of their baseline jumps to document how they could land softer. Subjects in each of the control groups were not provided any extraneous feedback. Peak vertical ground reaction force data were collected for analysis. RESULTS: The subjects in the augmented feedback group significantly reduced their peak vertical ground reaction force in both post-test conditions (2-minute post-test reduction, 0.85+/-0.62; 1-week post-test reduction, 0.74+/-0.58) as compared to the sensory, control I, and control II feedback groups. CONCLUSIONS: High impact landing forces may be reduced by the implementation of augmented feedback information instructing individuals about how to land properly. The reduction of jump landing forces with the use of augmented feedback may prove beneficial in the creation of instructional landing programs.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2000

A comparison of sideline versus clinical cognitive test performance in collegiate athletes.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether performance on 5 cognitive tests administered in a controlled clinical environment differed compared with administration in an uncontrolled sideline environment. Additionally, we investigated the effect of testing environment order on the learning effect for each cognitive test. DESIGN AND SETTING: Athletes were assessed on 2 test occasions (8 +/- 2 days apart), once in a sports medicine research laboratory and once on a lacrosse practice field site. SUBJECTS: A total of 59 Division I collegiate student-athletes participated in this study. MEASUREMENTS: Normative data were collected on 5 cognitive tests (Stroop Test, Trail-Making Test part A, Trail-Making Test part B, Wechsler Digit-Span Forward Test, and Digit-Span Backward Test). RESULTS: An independent-samples t test for environment difference on test day 1 revealed no significant differences between tests performed in the controlled environment and those performed in the uncontrolled environment. A repeated- measures analysis of variance test revealed a significant learning effect for all 5 tests, as subjects tended to improve approximately 11 points on the Stroop Test, 3 seconds on the Trail-Making A Test, 7 seconds on the Trail-Making B Test, and 1 point each on the Wechsler Digit Span Forward and Backward Tests. A paired-samples t test using delta scores (first test minus second test), sorted by order of testing environment, revealed a significant difference for the Stroop Test, but not for the remaining cognitive tests. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no difference in cognitive testing performance completed in a controlled clinical environment versus that performed in an uncontrolled sideline environment. This finding suggests that clinicians can administer cognitive tests to athletes with mild head injuries in uncontrolled sideline environments and expect valid results. Thus, clinicians can more thoroughly evaluate mildly head-injured athletes during the most crucial period after injury so that a safe return-to-play decision can be based on quantifiable, objective data.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1999

Comparison of 3 methods of external support for management of acute lateral ankle sprains.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of 3 different types of injury support systems (standard elastic wrap with horseshoe, Aircast Sport Stirrup, and Omni Multiphase orthosis) used in treating acute inversion ankle sprains. SUBJECTS: We recruited 30 physically active college-aged subjects who had sustained a grade 1 + or 2 lateral ankle sprain within the previous 24 hours for the study. DESIGN AND SETTING: Subjects were randomly placed into one of 3 groups, the first treated with standard elastic wrap with horseshoe, the second with an Aircast Sport Stirrup, and the third with an Omni Multiphase orthosis. Subjects reported to the athletic training room on days 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 postinjury. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed subjects for ankle volume, functional performance, and self-perception of symptoms during the 5 postinjury assessments. RESULTS: We found no significant differences among the 3 groups on measures of volume, level of function, and self-perception of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that none of these methods is superior to the others for reducing swelling, restoring function, or relieving symptoms during the acute management of lateral ankle sprains.

Journal Article↗