Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32093732›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Biomechanical and physiological differences between synchronous and asynchronous low intensity handcycling during practice-based learning in able-bodied men.

Cassandra Kraaijenbrink, Riemer J K Vegter, Alexander H R Hensen, Heiko Wagner, Lucas H V van der Woude

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cassandra KraaijenbrinkCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands. kraaijen@uni-muenster.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3763-7278
Riemer J K VegterCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Alexander H R HensenCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Heiko WagnerDepartment of Motion Science, Institute of Sports Science, University of Münster, Horstmarer Landweg 62b, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Lucas H V van der WoudeCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOriginally, the cranks of a handcycle were mounted with a 180° phase shift (asynchronous). However, as handcycling became more popular, the crank mode switched to a parallel mounting (synchronous) over the years. Differences between both modes have been investigated, however, not into great detail for propulsion technique or practice effects. Our aim is to compare both crank modes from a biomechanical and physiological perspective, hence considering force and power production as a cause of physiological outcome measures. This is done within a practice protocol, as it is expected that motor learning takes place in the early stages of handcycling in novices.

methodsTwelve able-bodied male novices volunteered to take part. The experiment consisted of a pre-test, three practice sessions and a post-test, which was subsequently repeated for both crank modes in a counterbalanced manner. In each session the participants handcycled for 3 × 4 minutes on a leveled motorized treadmill at 1.94 m/s. Inbetween sessions were 2 days of rest. 3D forces, handlebar and crank angle were measured on the left hand side. Kinematic markers were placed on the handcycle to monitor the movement on the treadmill. Lastly, breath-by-breath spirometry combined with heart-rate were continuously measured. The effects of crank mode and practice-based learning were analyzed using a two way repeated measures ANOVA, with synchronous vs asynchronous and pre-test vs post-test as within-subject factors.

resultsIn the pre-test, asynchronous handcycling was less efficient than synchronous handcycling in terms of physiological strain, force production and timing. At the post-test, the metabolic costs were comparable for both modes. The force production was, also after practice, more efficient in the synchronous mode. External power production, crank rotation velocity and the distance travelled back and forwards on the treadmill suggest that asynchronous handcycling is more constant throughout the cycle.

conclusionsAs the metabolic costs were reduced in the asynchronous mode, we would advise to include a practice period, when comparing both modes in scientific experiments. For handcycle users, we would currently advise a synchronous set-up for daily use, as the force production is more effective in the synchronous mode, even after practice.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaHandHeart RateHumansMaleMovementWheelchairsYoung AdultCrank modeCyclic exerciseEfficiencyForce productionMotor learningPractice

Identifiers

PMID32093732
PMCPMC7038515
OpenAlexW3010976748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.