Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056403›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2022

The effects of technological and traditional feedback on back squat performance in untrained women.

N Stien, V Andersen, G H Engelsrud, T E J Solstad, A H Saeterbakken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  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.

N StienFaculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway. Nicolay.stien@hvl.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5161-9055
V AndersenFaculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
G H EngelsrudFaculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
T E J SolstadFaculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
A H SaeterbakkenFaculty of Education, Arts, and Sports, Department of Sport, Food, and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, a novel method for improving movement quality called open-ended augmented feedback has been introduced. However, the effects of using such feedback in a training intervention have not yet been examined. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in performance and movement quality following a five-week resistance-training program with either (1) technological feedback or (2) traditional, verbal feedback from an experienced trainer.

methodsNineteen untrained females (age: 21.84 ± 2.24 years, height: 169.95 ± 5.92 cm, body mass: 65.05 ± 7.93 kg) randomly allocated to one of the two conditions completed five weeks of training with two weekly sessions. Pre- and post-intervention, participants were tested for physical performance (i.e., back squat and isometric mid-thigh pull strength) and movement quality parameters (weight distribution, center of gravity variation, and subjective rating of the back squat technique).

resultsBoth groups similarly increased the training resistance throughout the intervention (p < 0.01), as well as strength in the back squat (technological feedback group: effect size (ES) = 1.31, p = 0.002; traditional feedback group: ES = 1.48, p = 0.002). Only the traditional feedback group increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength (ES = 1.11, p = 0.008) and subjectively rated lifting technique at the same load (p = 0.046). No changes in force distribution (p = 0.062-0.993) or center of gravity variation (p = 0.160-0.969) occurred in either group when lifting the same absolute loads at post-test. However, both groups displayed a greater variation in center of gravity when lifting the same relative load at post-test (technological feedback group: p < 0.001; traditional feedback group: p = 0.006). No differences were found between the groups for any of the observed changes (p = 0.205-0.401).

conclusionsFive weeks of back-squat training with verbal feedback increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength and subjectively rated lifting technique from pre- to post-test, whereas technological feedback did not. Both methods improved back squat strength and training resistance. For resistance-training beginners, the choice between feedback methods should be based on the desired outcomes and the availability of expertise and equipment.

Indexed as

Movement qualityStrengthTechniqueTraining

Identifiers

PMID36056403
PMCPMC9438286

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.