ArticlePloS one2024
Motor variability during resistance training: Acceleration signal as intensity indicator.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Movement Variability During the Spike Jump Action in Young and High-Level Female Volleyball Players: Differences Between Categories and Playing Positions.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Correction: Motor variability during resistance training: Acceleration signal as intensity indicator.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analysis of variability in physiological time series has been shown to be an indicator of the state of the organism. Although there is evidence of the usefulness of analysis of the amount and/or structure of variability (complexity) in cycling actions, there is limited knowledge about its application in resistance exercise. The aim of this study is to find out whether variability in acceleration signals can be an indicator of intensity level in a squat task. For this purpose, an experimental design was developed in which the following participated seventy-two participants (age = 25.7 ± 4.4 years; height = 169.2 ± 9.8 cm; body mass = 67.7 ± 11.2 kg; ratio 1RM/body mass = 1.4 ± 0.3). They performed four repetitions of back squat at loads of 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of 1RM. Acceleration during the exercise was recorded using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a force platform. The variability of the movement was then analyzed using Standard Deviation (SD), Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA), Fuzzy Entropy (FuzzyEn), and Sample Entropy (SampEn). For the IMU and for the force platform, significant effects were observed in all variables (p < 0.001). In pairwise comparisons, IMU showed a significant increase in motor complexity with increasing intensity, among most intensities, in DFA, FuzzyEn and SampEn. Differences in force platform were more limited, and only DFA detected differences between most intensities. The results suggest that measures of signal and acceleration variability may be a useful indicator of the relative intensity at which a squat exercise is performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.