Dual-task and anticipation impact lower limb biomechanics during a single-leg cut with body borne load. (8th December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Seymore, Kayla D.; Cameron, Sarah E.; Kaplan, Jonathan T.; Ramsay, John W.; Brown, Tyler N.
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomechanics. Volume 65(2017)
• Page Start: 131
• Page End: 137
• Publication Date: 2017-12-08
• Subjects: Kinematics -- Kinetics -- Decision-making -- Attention -- Load carriage; Animal mechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Mécanique animale -- Périodiques; Biomécanique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 571.4305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.10.021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9290

Abstract

Abstract: This study quantified how a dual cognitive task impacts lower limb biomechanics during anticipated and unanticipated single-leg cuts with body borne load. Twenty-four males performed anticipated and unanticipated cuts with and without a dual cognitive task with three load conditions: no load (∼6 kg), medium load (15% of BW), and heavy load (30% of BW). Lower limb biomechanics were submitted to a repeated measures linear mixed model to test the main and interaction effects of load, anticipation, and dual task. With body borne load, participants increased peak stance (PS) hip flexion (p = .004) and hip internal rotation (p = .001) angle, and PS hip flexion (p = .001) and internal rotation (p = .018), and knee flexion (p = .016) and abduction (p = .001) moments. With the dual task, participants decreased PS knee flexion angle (p < .001) and hip flexion moment (p = .027), and increased PS knee external rotation angle (p = .034). During the unanticipated cut, participants increased PS hip (p = .040) and knee flexion angle (p < .001), and decreased PS hip adduction (p = .001), and knee abduction (p = .005) and external rotation (p = .026) moments. Adding body borne load produces lower limb biomechanical adaptations thought to increase risk of musculoskeletal injury, but neither anticipation nor dual task exaggerated those biomechanical adaptations. With a dual task, participants adopted biomechanics known to increase injury risk; whereas, participants used lower limb biomechanics thought to decrease injury risk during unanticipated cuts.