Human Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Sep 1;36(9):2387-2402. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004275. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
Merrigan, JJ, Stone, JD, Galster, SM, and Hagen, JA. Analyzing force-time curves: Comparison of commercially available automated software and custom MATLAB analyses. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2387-2402, 2022-With the growing prevalence of commercial force plate solutions providing automated force-time curve analysis, it is critical to understand the level of agreement across techniques. Thus, this study directly compared commercial and custom software analyses across force-time curves. Twenty-four male and female subjects completed 6 trials of countermovement, squat, and drop jumps, and isometric mid-thigh pulls on the same force plate. Vertical ground reaction forces were analyzed by automated software from Vald Performance, Hawkin Dynamics, and custom MATLAB scripts. Trials were visually assessed to verify proper landmark identifications. Systematic and proportional bias among analyses were compared via least products regressions, Bland-Altman plots, and percent error. Hawkin Dynamics had subtle differences in analysis procedures and demonstrated low percent errors across all tests (<3% error), despite demonstrating systematic and proportional bias for several metrics. ForceDecks demonstrated larger percent differences and greater biases for several metrics. These errors likely result from different identification of movement initiation, system weight, and integration techniques, which causes error to subsequent landmark identifications (e.g., braking/propulsive phases) and respective force-time metrics. Many metrics were in agreement between devices, such as isometric mid-thigh pull peak force consistently within 1 N across analyses, but some metrics are difficult and incomparable across software analyses (i.e., rate of force development). Overall, many metrics were in agreement across each commercial software and custom MATLAB analyses after visually confirming landmarks. However, because of inconsistencies, it is important to only compare metrics that are in agreement across software analyses when absolutely necessary.
梅里根、JJ、斯通、JD、加尔斯特、SM 和黑根,JA。分析力-时曲线:商业可用自动软件与自定义 MATLAB 分析的比较。J 力量与条件研究 36(9):2387-2402,2022 年-随着提供自动力-时曲线分析的商业力量板解决方案的日益普及,了解技术之间的一致性水平至关重要。因此,本研究直接比较了商业和自定义软件在力-时曲线上的分析。24 名男性和女性受试者在同一块力量板上完成了 6 次反向动作、深蹲和跳落,以及等长大腿中部拉伸。垂直地面反作用力由 Vald Performance、Hawkin Dynamics 和自定义 MATLAB 脚本的自动软件进行分析。试验通过视觉评估验证了适当的地标识别。通过最小产品回归、Bland-Altman 图和百分比误差比较分析之间的系统和比例偏差。尽管在几个指标上表现出系统和比例偏差,但 Hawkins Dynamics 的分析程序略有不同,并且在所有测试中都表现出较低的百分比误差(<3%的误差)。ForceDecks 在几个指标上表现出较大的百分比差异和更大的偏差。这些错误可能是由于不同的运动起始识别、系统重量和积分技术造成的,这会导致后续地标识别(例如,制动/推进阶段)和各自的力-时指标出现错误。许多指标在设备之间是一致的,例如等长大腿中部拉伸的峰值力在分析中始终一致,相差不超过 1 牛,但有些指标在软件分析中是困难且不可比的(即,力发展速率)。总体而言,在视觉确认地标后,许多指标在每个商业软件和自定义 MATLAB 分析之间是一致的。然而,由于不一致,只有在绝对必要时,才应比较软件分析之间一致的指标。