| Objective:Some studies have shown that basketball players can improve their motor ability through local vibration stimulation,but comprehensive studies of targeted intervention methods on lower extremity neuromotor control function in basketball players are relatively rare.Lower extremity neuromotor control functions,which include motor function,balance function and proprioception,are closely related to lower extremity sports injuries and performance in basketball players.Therefore,studying the effects of targeted intervention methods on neuromotor control can provide a reference for the prevention of lower extremity injuries and the improvement of athletic performance in basketball players.The vibrating roller(VR),a locally targeted intervention tool,has been widely used in different sports in recent years,but its effects on lower extremity neuromotor control of basketball players are still unclear.Therefore,one of the aims of this thesis is to investigate whether a local intervention is effective in improving various motor functions in the lower extremity of basketball players.In addition,the most common ankle injury in basketball is related to the function of the peroneal muscles,while running off the ground relies heavily on the calf gastrocnemius,and it has been shown that local vibration may have different effects when applied to different body parts.Hence,the second aim of this study was to investigate whether vibrating roller on peroneal(VR-p)or gastrocnemius muscles(VR-g)had different effects on the lower extremity functions of basketball players,and to select a more optimal solution.In this study,a crossover design with self-control was used,and the results of the study may expand the practical application of VR in basketball,with a view to providing a theoretical reference for sports injury prevention and performance enhancement.Methods:Twenty-nine right-footed college male basketball players were included through sample size calculations.All subjects were randomized to complete VR-p and VR-g,each intervention was performed in 3 groups of 30 s each with a 30 s break between groups and a vibration frequency of 45 Hz.The indicators were tested immediately after the intervention.Motor function assessments include:muscle strength(using the Biodex device to measure the relative weight peak torque in the 4directions of plantarflexion,dorsiflexion,inversion and eversion),muscle endurance(using the Biodex device to measure the endurance index in the 4 directions:EI);agility(using the Hexagonal Agility Test:HAT),movement speed(using the Change of Direction Speed Test:CODS),joint mobility(by assessing the active ankle joint range of motion in the 4 directions of plantarflexion,dorsiflexion,inversion and eversion).For balance function tests the Y-Balance Test(Y-BT)was used,and for ankle proprioception tests the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus(AMEDA)was used.The interval between Crossover intervention was 2 days.Repeated measures ANOVA was performed for each measure using SPSS 22.0 statistical software,and Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the trend of covariance of different indicators,with the level of significant difference set at p<0.05.Results:The effect of VR intervention on motor function:Relative weight peak torque:The interaction effects of intervention muscle groups,bilateral limbs,and test directions were significant(F=1.883,p=0.032,η_p~2=0.458).The results of the simple effects analysis showed that the differences in the relative weight peak torque of bilateral plantarflexion in the VR-g condition compared to the other conditions were statistically significant.(Left:F=92.057,p=0.012;Right:F=94.010,p=0.041);This indicates that the VR-g intervention was effective in improving the muscle strength of the subject’s bilateral ankle joints;EI:Intervention muscle groups,bilateral limbs,and test directions interaction effects were not significant(F=3.184,p=0.241,η_p~2=0.380).It indicated that there was no significant difference in the effect of the intervention modality on the muscular endurance of the ankle in four directions.This indicates that neither of the 2 interventions was effective in improving the muscular endurance of the subject’s ankle in all 4 directions of movement;HAT:The main effect of the intervention muscle groups was significant(F=5.404,p=0.220,η_p~2=0.261),the results of the multiple comparisons showed that,only VR-g intervention is effective in improving agility in subjects(F=42.090,p=0.039);CODS:The main effect of intervention muscle groups was not significant(F=1.898,p=0.411,η_p~2=0.483).It indicated that there was no significant difference in the effect of different interventions on the subjects’change of direction speed,suggesting that neither of the 2 local vibrating roller interventions was effective in increasing the movement speed of the subjects;Active ankle range of motion:The interaction effects of intervention modality and bilateral limbs were significant(F=4.184,p=0.045,η_p~2=0.502),and there was also an significant interaction effect between the intervention and the test directions(F=1.058,p=0.033,η_p~2=0.227);Simple effects analysis showed a significant increase in bilateral ankle inversion mobility in the VR-p(F=32.170,p=0.001),and a significant increase in bilateral ankle dorsiflexion mobility in the VR-g(F=39.767,p=0.004).The effect of VR intervention on balance function:The interaction effects of intervention,bilateral limbs,and test directions were significant(F=3.904,p=0.036,η_p~2=0.275);The results of the simple effects analysis showed statistically significant differences in the combined scores of the VR-g group compared with the results of baseline(Left:F=5.373,p=0.011;Right:F=10.804,p=0.043).The significance of the results is mainly reflected in the significant increase in the distance reached by the posterior lateral(t=1.380,p=0.027)and posterior medial reach(t=0.822,p=0.004)during left foot support.The effect of VR intervention on proprioception:The interaction effect between the intervention muscle groups and the bilateral limbs was not significant(F=1.674,p=0.200,η_p~2=0.274);nor was the main effect of each factor(F=1.003,p=0.376,η_p~2=0.146;F=0.706,p=0.410,η_p~2=0.333).This indicates that neither of the 2 interventions was effective in improving bilateral ankle proprioception in the subjects.Conclusion:VR-g can effectively improve a variety of lower extremity motor functions and balance function in basketball players compared with VR-p and is therefore recommended;while VS-p can effectively increase ankle inversion mobility,this effect may lead to an increased risk of ankle inversion sprain and is therefore not recommended. |
PDF Full Text Request