PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “throwing”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Effects of throwing overweight and underweight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy.

The purpose of this review is to determine how throwing overweight and underweight baseballs affects baseball throwing velocity and accuracy. Two studies examined how a warm-up with overweight baseballs affected throwing velocity and accuracy of 5 oz regulation baseballs. One of these studies showed significant increases in throwing velocity and accuracy, while the other study found no significant differences. Three training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration) using overweight baseballs were conducted to determine how they affected ball accuracy while throwing regulation baseballs. No significant differences were found in any study. From these data it is concluded that warming up or training with overweight baseballs does not improve ball accuracy. Seven overweight and 4 underweight training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration) were conducted to determine how throwing velocity of regulation baseballs was affected due to training with these overweight and underweight baseballs. The overweight baseballs ranged in weight from 5.25 to 17 oz, while the underweight baseballs were between 4 and 4.75 oz. Data from these training studies strongly support the practice of training with overweight and underweight baseballs to increase throwing velocity of regulation baseballs. Since no injuries were reported throughout the training studies, throwing overweight and underweight baseballs may not be more stressful to the throwing arm compared to throwing regulation baseballs. However, since currently there are no injury data related to throwing overweight and underweight baseballs, this should be the focus of subsequent studies. In addition, research should be initiated to determine whether throwing kinematics and kinetics are different between throwing regulation baseballs and throwing overweight and underweight baseballs.

Animals↗
PubMed1998

Variability in development of overarm throwing: a longitudinal case study over the first 6 months of throwing.

One female subject of 15 months of age, at the onset of over-arm-throwing behaviour, was tested on a longitudinal study of throwing development. Data were collected at the onset of throwing and monthly thereafter, producing 6 sets of data. Kinematic variables were obtained using 3-dimensional video analysis and digitization. Qualitative observations showed that both arm-dominated and sequentially linked throws, right- and left-handed throws, and homolateral and contralateral forward steps were generated in an array of inconsistent throwing. Sequentially linked throws were generally 'interrupted', whereby the child paused briefly after the Back swing to focus externally, then the child executed the propulsion. The throwing elbow remained flexed at ball release. Angles of ball release (referred to the horizontal) fluctuated from 2.17 degrees to 28.03 degrees for all 6 months of throwing development, and the speed of ball release varied from 2.08 m/sec. to 4.32 m/sec. Height of ball release oscillated between 91.5% and 103.3% of the child's height. Horizontal and vertical components of the velocity of the ball while in the hand differed amongst both arm-dominated and sequentially linked throws. The time of the Push up phase in arm-dominated throws varied from 0.14 sec. to 0.50 sec. In sequentially linked throws the time of the Back swing ranged from 0.18 sec. to 0.22 sec., and the Propulsion varied from 0.06 sec. to 0.14 sec. This work in identifying such variability is important, therefore, in the understanding of the motor skill of throwing.

Arm↗
PubMed1996

Throwing while looking through prisms. II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations.

Human subjects threw balls of clay at a visual target while looking through wedge prism spectacles. In studies of short-term adjustment, subjects threw in the direction of their prism-bent gaze, missing the target to that side. Within 10-30 throws, they gradually adapted with a wider gaze-throw angle and hit the target. Immediately after removal of the prisms the wide gaze-throw angle persisted and throws missed the target to the opposite side, the so-called 'negative after effect'. Repeated throws were required to adapt back to the normal gaze-throw angle and hit the target. The adaptation was specific both to the body parts trained and the type of throw trained: training with the right hand did not generalize to throwing with the left; overhand training seldom generalized to underhand throwing. In a study of long-term adjustment, two subjects threw with the same hand (right) and the same type of throw (overhand) alternately, with and without prisms, over a period of 6 weeks. They gradually learned to hit the target on the first throw, with and without prisms. The two gaze-throw calibrations (prism and no-prism) were retained for > 27 months. The long-term adjustment was shown to consist of a coordinated relationship of eye-in-head, head-on-trunk and trunk-on-arm angles.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Predicting children's overarm throw ball velocities from their developmental levels in throwing.

This study examined the movement process-product relationship from a developmental perspective. The authors used multiple regression to investigate the changing relationship between qualitative movement descriptions of the overarm throw and the throwing outcome, horizontal ball velocity. Seventeen girls and 22 boys were filmed longitudinally at ages 6, 7, 8, and 13 years. Their movements were assessed using Roberton's (Roberton & Halverson, 1984) developmental sequences for action of the humerus, forearm, trunk, stepping, and stride length. The sequences accounted for 69-85% (adjusted) of the total velocity variance each year. The components that best predicted ball velocity changed over time, although humerus or forearm action always accounted for considerable variance. Gender was a good predictor of ball velocity, but if the developmental descriptions were entered first in a stepwise regression, gender then explained no more than 2% additional variance.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

A comparative study of aimed throwing by monkeys and humans.

This research examined hand preference and postural characteristics of aimed throwing in capuchin monkeys and humans. We sought to directly compare the throwing performances of these primates, particularly the extent to which target distance influences hand preference, throwing posture, and throwing accuracy. For both species we found positive correlations between target distances for throwing accuracy, direction and strength of hand preference, percentage of bipedal vs tripedal throws, and percentage of overarm vs underarm throws. Throwing accuracy did not vary as a function of right vs left hand use although for monkeys throwing accuracy was positively associated with hand preference strength. We noted a sex difference among humans as males threw more accurately than did females. Between-species analysis indicated that humans exhibited greater right- vs left-hand use, greater hand preference strength, a greater relative percentage of bipedal vs tripedal throws, and a lower relative percentage of overarm vs underarm throws than did monkeys. We believe that the capuchin monkey is an informative nonhuman primate model of aimed throwing in humans and that research examining the throwing behavior of capuchins provides insight into the neurological and behavioral characteristics that underlie coordinated multi-joint movements across the primate order.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Overarm throws with the nondominant arm: kinematics of accuracy.

1. Overarm throws made with the nondominant arm are usually less accurate than those made with the dominant arm. The objective was to determine the errors in the joint rotations associated with this inaccuracy, and thereby to gain insight into the neural mechanisms that contribute to skill in overarm throwing. 2. Overarm throws from both left and right arms were recorded on different occasions as six right-handed subjects sat with a fixed trunk and threw 150 tennis balls at about the same speed at a 6-cm square on a target grid 3 m away. Joint rotations at the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and finger, and arm translations, were computed from recordings of arm segment orientations made with the magnetic-field search-coil technique. 3. All subjects threw less accurately in this task with the left (nondominant) arm. For throws made with the left arm, the height of ball impact on the target grid was related to hand trajectory length and to hand orientation in space at ball release, but not to hand trajectory height. 4. Two hypotheses were proposed to explain the decreased ball accuracy in the high-low direction during throwing with the nondominant arm: that it was caused by increased variability in the velocity or timing of onset of rotations at proximal joints (which determine the path of the hand through space) or increased variability in the velocity or timing of onset of finger extension (which determine the moment of ball release). 5. A prediction of the first hypothesis was that proximal joint rotations should be more variable in throws with the left arm. This was the case for the majority of proximal joint rotations in the six subjects when variability was examined in joint space. However, some proximal joint rotations were more variable in the right arm. 6. The first hypothesis was directly tested by determining whether hand angular position in space (which represents the sum of all proximal joint rotations) was related to ball impact height on the target grid at a fixed translational position in the throw. No relation was found between these variables for throws with the left arm in four subjects, whereas a weak relation was found for two subjects. It was concluded that, considering all subjects, the first hypothesis could not explain the results. 7. In contrast, in agreement with the second hypothesis, a strong relation (P < 0.001) was found in all subjects between ball impact height on the target grid and time of ball release for throws with the left arm, and with time of onset of finger extension. 8. Across all six subjects the timing precision (windows) for 95% of the throws was (for ball release) right arm, 9.3 ms; left arm, 22.5 ms; (for onset of finger extension) right arm, 13.7 ms; left arm, 26.7 ms. 9. Timing of onset of finger extension was no less accurate than timing of onset of other joint rotations for both left and right arms. However, simulations of throws showed that, for the same error in timing, finger extension had twice as large an effect on ball direction as any other joint rotation. Timing errors at the fingers have a greater effect than errors at other joints because finger errors are scaled by the higher angular velocity of the hand in space rather than by the smaller angular velocities of the individual joints. 10. It is concluded that although rotations were in general more variable at both proximal and distal joints of the nondominant (left) arm, the major cause of its decreased throwing accuracy was increased variability at the distal joints, i.e., in the timing of onset of finger extension. This may be due to a lack of precision in the commands from the right hemisphere to the left fingers in right-handed throwers.

Arm↗
PubMed1999

Prediction and compensation by an internal model for back forces during finger opening in an overarm throw.

Previous studies have indicated that timing of finger opening in an overarm throw is likely controlled centrally, possibly by means of an internal model of hand trajectory. The present objective was to extend the study of throwing to an examination of the dynamics of finger opening. Throwing a heavy ball and throwing a light ball presumably require different neural commands, because the weight of the ball affects the mechanics of the arm, and particularly, the mechanics of the finger. Yet finger control is critical to the accuracy of an overarm throw. We hypothesized that finger opening in an overarm throw is controlled by a central mechanism that uses an internal model to predict and compensate for movement-dependent back forces on the fingers. To test this idea we determined whether finger motion is affected by back forces, i.e., whether larger back forces cause larger finger extensions. Back forces were varied by having subjects throw, at the same fast speed, tennis-sized balls of different weights (14, 55, and 196 g). Arm- and finger-joint rotations were recorded with the search-coil technique; forces on the middle finger were measured with force transducers. Recordings showed that during ball release, the middle finger experienced larger back forces in throws with heavier balls. Nevertheless, most subjects showed proximal interphalangeal joint extensions that were unchanged or actually smaller with the heavier balls. This was the case for the first throw and for all subsequent throws with a ball of a new weight. This suggests that the finger flexors compensated for the larger back forces by exerting larger torques during finger extension. Supporting this view, at the moment of ball release, all finger joints flexed abruptly due to the now unopposed torques of the finger flexors, and the amplitude of this flexion was proportional to ball weight. We conclude that in overarm throws made with balls of different weights, the CNS predicts the different back forces from the balls and adjusts finger flexor torques accordingly. This is consistent with the view that finger opening in overarm throws is controlled by means of an internal model of the motor apparatus and the external load.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed1994

Arm position constraints when throwing in three dimensions.

1. Overarm throwing is a skilled multijoint movement with potentially many degrees of freedom. Considering only the arm > or = 7 degrees of freedom are involved (shoulder 3, elbow 2, wrist 2). For each arm segment 3 degrees of freedom are potentially required to specify its angular position (orientation) at any moment during a throw. Simplification of the control problem for the CNS would occur if there were constraints on these degrees of freedom. The objective was to determine whether such constraints exist at ball release when throwing at targets in different directions using only the arm. 2. The angular positions in three dimensions of the distal phalanx of the middle finger, the hand, the forearm, and the upper arm were simultaneously recorded with search coils as subjects sat with a fixed trunk and threw balls at nine targets in an approximate +/- 40 degree work space. Ball release was signaled by microswitches on the proximal and distal phalanges of the middle finger (proximal and distal triggers). 3. On throwing at any one target the hand at ball release adopted a similar orientation for each throw, i.e., for a particular vertical and horizontal angular position the hand adopted a similar torsional position. On throwing at targets throughout the work space, angular position (rotation) vectors describing hand positions in space at ball release were confined to a two-dimensional surface rather than a three-dimensional volume. This constraint in hand torsion occurred near and at ball release but not throughout the entire throw. It was not due to mechanical factors because such a surface was not obtained when subjects deliberately twisted their arms when throwing. Thus at ball release during a "natural" throw the hand was constrained to 2 of its possible 3 angular degrees of freedom. 4. The same constraint was also found for finger, forearm, and upper arm angular positions in space at ball release as determined at both the proximal and distal triggers. A consequence is that at ball release the entire arm was constrained to 2 of its possible 7 degrees of freedom. 5. The two-dimensional position vector surface for each arm segment was similar to that obtained when pointing with a straight arm at the same targets. In both cases they showed torsion and were twisted like the surface obtained by rotations around the horizontal and vertical axes of a Fick gimbal. However, in some subjects the throwing surfaces were tilted from the vertical.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Errors in the control of joint rotations associated with inaccuracies in overarm throws.

1. Accurate overarm throwing requires precise control of joint rotations so that the ball is released at the appropriate time on the appropriate hand trajectory. Inaccuracy in throws, in turn, must result from errors in the control of joint rotations. But do high and low throws result from disorders in the joint rotations that produce the hand trajectory or in those that cause ball release? Are they due to error at a particular joint or to accumulation of errors across a number of joints? The objective was to answer these questions and thereby to gain insight into the CNS control of joint rotations in a skilled arm movement task. 2. Ten subjects--male, right-handed recreational ball players, all accurate throwers--sat with a fixed trunk and threw tennis balls at a 9 x 9 grid of 6-cm target squares 1.5 or 3 m away. Rotations of five arm segments in three dimensions were measured at 1,000 Hz with the magnetic-field search-coil technique. Hand trajectory (translation) was computed from these rotations. 3. The cause of ball high-low inaccuracy was investigated by determining its relation with hand kinematic parameters that could potentially affect it. No statistically significant relation was found between height of ball impact on the target and height of the hand trajectory. In contrast, statistically significant relations appeared between height of ball impact on the target and both hand trajectory length at ball release (for 8 of 10 subjects) and finger and hand orientation in space at ball release (for all 10 subjects). 4. Three hypotheses were proposed to explain the variable finger and hand orientations in space at ball release, i.e., that they resulted from errors in velocity of rotation at one or more proximal joints (wrist, elbow, shoulder), timing of onset of rotation at one or more proximal joints, or timing of ball release (due to incorrect velocity or timing of onset of finger opening). All three mechanisms could result in inappropriate finger and hand orientations in space at ball release, but the pattern of joint space trajectories would be different in each case. 5. High and low throws did not follow the joint space paths predicted by the first two hypotheses. Instead, as predicted by the third hypothesis, a separation of traces occurred when finger extension was plotted against wrist flexion or against elbow extension, e.g., for a given amplitude of wrist flexion, finger extension was large for the high throws and small for the low throws. 6. In agreement, when all throws were considered, a statistically significant (P < 0.005) relation was found between ball impact height on the target and the amplitude of finger extension, for a fixed amplitude of wrist flexion (10 subjects), and for a fixed amplitude of elbow extension (8 subjects). Only two subjects showed a statistically significant relation between ball impact height and the amplitude of wrist flexion, for a fixed amplitude of elbow extension. 7. The separation of finger extension-wrist flexion traces in joint space for high and low throws was due to a difference in the timing of onset of finger rotation with respect to the wrist rather than to an inappropriate velocity of the finger (or the wrist). 8. As expected, all 10 subjects showed statistically significant relations between the time of onset of finger extension and both finger orientation in space at ball release and height of ball impact on the target. 9. It is concluded that in fast arm-only throws made by male recreational ball players, high and low throws do not primarily result from variability in the height of the hand trajectory or from variability in the amplitude of one or more proximal joints due to errors in the velocity or timing of onset of these joint rotations. Instead, in most cases, they result from inappropriate timing of onset of rotation of the fingers with respect to the rotations of the other joints and thus to inappropriate timing of ball release. These findings emphasize the im

Arm↗
PubMed2003

Elbow disorders in throwing athletes.

Skeletally immature throwing athletes are injured when they throw too frequently or use throwing styles and pitches that overstress their elbows. Despite safety guidelines for throwing that recommend throwing more than 300, but less than 600, pitches per season, compliance is almost impossible to monitor, given multiple opportunities for throwing abuse away from organized, supervised league play. All throwers should avoid the side-arm throwing style. Pitchers should not play in multiple leagues, should not play hard-throwing positions when not pitching, and should not pitch when having elbow or shoulder pain. When the elbow becomes painful, pitching should cease and a thorough evaluation performed. Once the diagnosis is made, appropriate nonoperative treatment is undertaken. Operative intervention in this age group uncommonly is needed. Rehabilitation includes identifying and eliminating causative risk factors. Educating the athlete, coach, and parents results in a longer, pain-free throwing career and enhanced enjoyment of the sport.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Control of finger grip forces in overarm throws made by skilled throwers.

In an overarm throw, as the hand opens and the ball rolls along the fingers, the ball exerts a back force on the fingers. Previous studies suggested that skilled throwers compensate for this back force by producing an appropriate finger flexor torque to oppose the back force, but it was unclear how this is controlled by the CNS. We investigated whether the increase in finger flexor torque is timed precisely to occur late in the throw as the fingers open or whether the increase occurs throughout the throw to anticipate the increase in hand acceleration. Recreational ball players threw balls of different weights and diameters at different speeds from both a sitting and standing position while arm joint rotations were recorded with the search-coil technique. Force transducers were taped to the distal and middle phalanges of the middle finger and subjects released the ball from this finger. Passive forces on the finger were also recorded in "fake" throws in which the ball was taped to the finger and subjects did not grip the ball. These skilled throwers correctly anticipated the magnitude of the back force from the ball on the finger because the mean amplitude of finger extension did not increase in throws made with a large range of increasing back forces. This was achieved by subjects gripping the ball during the backswing with a force proportional to ball weight and intended ball speed (acceleration) and progressively increasing the grip force throughout the backswing and forward throw. The magnitude of this grip force during the forward throw was not affected by ball texture. After ball release from the fingertip, the finger flexed in proportion to the peak force on the finger before ball release. It is concluded, in a skilled fast overarm throw where large, fast-changing forces on the fingers result from the sum of motions at all arm joints, that finger flexor torque is progressively increased throughout the throw in an anticipatory (predictive) fashion to counteract the progressively increasing back force from the ball.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Increased variability in finger position occurs throughout overarm throws made by cerebellar and unskilled subjects.

We investigated the ability of cerebellar patients and unskilled subjects to control finger grip position and the amplitude of finger opening during a multijoint overarm throw. This situation is of interest because the appropriate finger control requires predicting the magnitude of back forces from the ball on the finger throughout the throw and generating the appropriate level and rate of change of finger flexor torque to oppose the back force. Cerebellar patients, matched controls, and unskilled subjects threw tennis balls and tennis-sized balls of different weights. In all cases angular positions of five arm segments in three dimension were recorded at 1,000 Hz with the search-coil technique as subjects threw from a seated position. When the hand was stationary, cerebellar patients showed a normal ability to grip the ball and open the fingers and drop the ball. In contrast, in overarm throws where a back force occurred on the fingers, cerebellar patients showed an abnormally large variability in amplitude of the change in finger position when gripping, in amplitude of finger opening, and in amplitude of the change in finger position 10 ms after ball release. This was not due to more trial-to-trial variation in throwing speed. When throwing balls of increasing weights, both controls and cerebellar patients had increasing finger flexions after ball release that indicated that, on average, both scaled finger force in proportion to ball weight during the throw. Unlike skilled controls, cerebellar patients showed a small (<20 degrees ) increase in the amplitude of finger opening with balls of increasing weight. However, neither the increase in variability of finger position nor the increase in finger amplitude with balls of increasing weight were unique cerebellar signs because both were observed to various degrees in unskilled throwers. It is concluded that in the absence of either normal cerebellar function or skill, the central neural activity that controls finger opening in throwing can increase finger flexor force to oppose an increase in back force from heavier balls and can open the fingers but cannot control finger force or finger opening precisely and consistently from throw to throw. These results fit with the idea that cerebellar disorders are greater in multijoint than single-joint movements because control of force is more complicated. They are also consistent with the hypothesis that the cerebellum produces skill in movement by reducing variability in the timing and force of muscle contractions.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Finger opening in an overarm throw is not triggered by proprioceptive feedback from elbow extension or wrist flexion.

Accuracy in an overarm throw requires great precision in the timing of finger opening. We tested the hypothesis that finger opening in an overarm throw is triggered by proprioceptive feedback from elbow extension or wrist flexion. The hypothesis was tested in two ways: first, by unexpectedly perturbing elbow extension or slowing wrist flexion and determining whether changes occurred in finger opening, and second, by measuring the latency from the start of these joint rotations to the start of finger opening. Subjects threw balls fast and accurately from a sitting or standing position while joint rotations were recorded with the search-coil technique. Elbow extension was unexpectedly blocked near the start of forward motion of the hand by a rope attached to the wrist that passed through a catch mechanism located behind the subject. In spite of a slowing or complete block of elbow extension, and in some cases a replacement of elbow extension by elbow flexion, finger opening always occurred and at the same latency as for normal throws. Wrist flexion was slowed in seven of eight subjects when subjects changed from throwing with a light ball (14 g, 70 mm diam.) to a heavy ball (210 g, 65 mm diam.). For the first throw with the heavy ball, this slowing was neither fully anticipated by the subject nor compensated for by the changed proprioceptive feedback associated with the slowing. Consequently, the timing of finger opening was unchanged and (to the surprise of the thrower) the ball went high. Furthermore, in unperturbed throws with tennis balls, the latency from onset of wrist flexion or elbow extension to onset of finger opening was too short for either to have triggered finger opening (across subjects means were 4 ms for wrist flexion and 21 ms for elbow extension). In additional analysis, no relation was found between the time of onset of earlier occurring rotations at the shoulder and the time of onset of finger opening. We concluded that, although a role for all proprioceptive feedback in triggering finger opening cannot be disproved by these experiments, it can be ruled out for feedback arising from elbow extension and wrist flexion, and it seems unlikely for feedback arising from events occurring very early in the throw. The more likely possibility is that finger opening in an overarm throw is triggered by a central command based on an internal model of hand trajectory.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed2002

A comparison of peak power in the shoulder press and shoulder throw.

The ability to generate peak power is central for performance in many sports. Currently two distinct resistance training methods are used to develop peak power, the heavy weight/slow velocity and light weight/fast velocity regimes. When using the light weight/fast velocity power training method it was proposed that peak power would be greater in a shoulder throw exercise compared with a normal shoulder press. Nine males performed three lifts in the shoulder press and shoulder throw at 30% and 40% of their one repetition maximum (1RM). These lifts were performed identically, except for the release of the bar in the throw condition. A potentiometer attached to the bar measured displacement and duration of the lifts. The time of bar release in the shoulder throw was determined with a pressure switch. ANOVA was used to examine statistically significant differences where the level of acceptance was set at p < 0.05. Peak power was found to be significantly greater in the shoulder throw at 30% of 1 RM condition [F, (1, 23) = 2.325 p < 0.051 and at 40% of 1 RM [F, (1, 23) = 2.905 p < 0.05] compared to values recorded for the respective shoulder presses. Peak power was also greater in the 30% of 1 RM shoulder throw (510 +/- 103W) than in the 40% of 1 RM shoulder press (471 +/- 96W). Peak power was produced significantly later in the shoulder throw versus the shoulder press. This differing power reflected a greater bar velocity of the shoulder throw at both assigned weights compared with the shoulder press.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Ritual and free-throw shooting in basketball.

The purpose of this study was to determine the nature and effect of certain highly patterned behaviours utilized prior to free-throw shooting in basketball. Ten female basketball players comprising the varsity squad of Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA served as subjects for this study. Subjects were filmed with a high-speed camera and monitored for heart rate during the performance of 10 free throws in each of two conditions: ritual and non-ritual. For the ritual condition, subjects were given unlimited time and freedom of movement prior to each free-throw attempt. For the non-ritual condition, subjects were not restricted by time, but were instructed to shoot the ball without utilizing any movements other than those required to project the ball to the goal. Dependent measures were characteristics of behaviours, physiological changes measured by heart rates, mechanical data (speed, height and angle of release), and number of successful attempts. Condition x trials analyses of variance and low standard deviation concerning characteristics of behaviours indicated that the idiosyncratic behaviours prior to free-throw shooting were rituals of the auto-communicative type. Results indicated no significant difference between conditions for free-throw success. However, partial correlation between dependent measures and successful free-throw attempts indicated that duration of behaviours was most crucial to free-throw shooting success.

Adult↗