درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Introduction: The present study aimed to compare hip muscle resistance training with and without feedback on trunk, pelvis, and lower extremity motions in frontal and sagittal planes among active females with dynamic valgus. Materials and Methods: Twenty-Nine active females (Mean±SD age: 22.8±2.4 years, height: 1.70±0.6 m, weight: 69±7.1 kg) were randomly assigned to a hip muscle resistance training with feedback group (n=15) or a hip muscle resistance training without feedback group (n=14). Both training programs lasted 6 weeks (3 sessions/week). The peak angles of lateral trunk flexion, contralateral pelvic drop, hip flexion, knee flexion, and valgus during single-leg drop landing and single-leg vertical drop jump were assessed in the research participants at baseline and 6 weeks post-training. Unipodal functional screening tests were captured with two standard digital video cameras. Results: After 6 weeks, significant differences were observed in knee valgus and lateral trunk flexion, contralateral pelvic drop, and knee flexion angles, i.e., compared between hip muscle resistance training with feedback and hip muscle resistance training without feedback (P<0.05), except for non-dominant leg hip flexion in single-leg vertical drop jump (P>0.05). Conclusion: In the explored active females with dynamic valgus, hip muscle resistance training with feedback seems to be better at improving trunk, pelvis, and lower extremity motions in frontal and sagittal planes, compared to hip muscle resistance training without feedback; however, no significant difference was observed concerning hip flexion during single-leg vertical drop jump between the study groups.

Introduction: Children and adolescents with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) usually fail to understand spatial awareness and motor timing. The present study assessed Rhythmic Auditory Stimulations (RAS) and Simple Auditory Stimulations (SAS) to facilitate the learning of timing in sequential motor task and recorded the results of their relative and absolute timing errors.  Materials and Methods: 56 male students aged 9-12 years with DCD in Neyshabur city were selected by diagnosing with the following tools: Teacher Motor Inventory, Parental Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second (MABC-2 movement test), spatial-visual memory assessment, intelligence assessment, RT test, and biopsychological health status evaluation. Then, they were divided into RAS, SAS, control group 1 (visual), and control group 2. Moreover, a pretest score was performed. Next, the training protocol was presented in 10 blocks of 5 attempts and the acquisition test was performed. Finally, the retention and transfer tests were performed after 48 hours and 10 minutes, respectively.  Results : Based on the obtained results, a significant difference was observed between the visual stimulation group and the RAS and SAS groups in relative and absolute timing components (P≤0.05). However, no significant difference was reported between the rhythmic, SAS, and visual-auditory stimulation groups in relative and absolute timing variables (P˃0.05). Conclusion: Finally, no significant difference was observed between the RAS and simple stimulations although the graphs displayed the effect of the first stimulation more than that of the second one.