A Comparison of 2 Optical Timing Systems Designed to Measure Flight Time and Contact Time During Jumping and Hopping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the interchangeability of 2 commercial optical timing systems for measuring flight time and contact time during jumping and hopping. Seventy-three physical education students (33 men and 40 women) participated in this study. They were instructed to perform 3 jump protocols (squat jump, countermovement jump, and countermovement jump free arms) and a hopping test (10 seconds with straight legs at a frequency of 2 Hz). Flight time and contact time were measured with 2 optical timing systems (Optojump, Microgate, Italia and IR-mat, Ergotest, Sweden), consisting of 2 bars placed opposite to each other. Both systems trigger a timer with a precision of 1 millisecond each time the infrared light is interrupted by the feet. Jump height was given by the systems, whereas leg stiffness was computed from contact time and flight time. Flight time was higher when measured with the IR-mat (bias +/- 95% LOA [limits of agreement] = 5 +/- 14 ms, p < 0.001). This difference was trivial (effect size <0.2) and clinically meaningless. The high correlation between sets of data (r = 0.99) together with narrow 95% LOA (3%) support the interchangeability of both systems to measure flight time. Similar results were found with contact time (bias +/- 95% LOA = 8 +/- 23 ms, p < 0.001, effect size <0.2 and r = 0.99), with the exception that it was the Optojump that provided the higher values. These trivial but significant differences between both systems had minor impact on jumping height (bias +/- 95% LOA = 0.6 +/- 1.7 cm, p < 0.001), effect size <0.2 and r = 0.99), and stiffness (bias +/- 95% LOA = 0.8 +/- 1.4 N.m.kg, p < 0.001, effect size <0.2 and r = 0.98). We concluded that both systems can be used interchangeably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".