Effects of Eight Week Plyometric Study on the Balance Performance of Hearing Impaired Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an experimental study and it was aimed to identify the effects of 8-week plyometric training of hearing-impaired athletes on balance. 24 Male hearing-impaired volleyball players participated in the study. Random method was used when experimental and control groups were identified. Subjects used in the study were divided into two groups as experiment (12 male age = 19.08 ± 1.62) and control group (12 male age = 17.75 ± 1.28). 3 days/90 min. volleyball training programme was applied for two groups per week.For the experimental group, plyometric training was applied after warming before the volleyball training sessions. The control group continued their regular volleyball training. Statistical results were evaluated at 95% confidence interval and p <0.05 significance level. Because the pre-test and post-test measurements of the groups were normal and homogeneous distribution, the Paired Samples T-Test was applied for the significance between them. To analyze the differences between the experimental group and control group, Independent Samples T-test was used.As a result of the plyometric exercises, the mean values of the pre-test and post-test differences of the static balance measurement parameters for the experimental and control groups were found to be significant in the values of overall stability R, medial lateral R, and overall stability L values (p <0.05). But, in the mean values, there was no significance of anterior posterior R., anterior posterior L. and medial lateral L. mean (p> 0.05).Consequently, it can be said that plyometric exercises have a positive effect especially on static balances of hearing-impaired volleyball players.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".