Impact of Holding a Badminton Racket on Spatio-Temporal and Kinetic Parameters During Manual Wheelchair Propulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Para badminton entered the Paralympic world for the first time with the 2021 Paralympic Games in Tokyo. The particularity of this sport lies in the handling of the wheelchair and the racket simultaneously. To the best of our knowledge, and considering the youthfulness of this sport, it appears that no study has looked at the impact of the badminton racket on the kinetic and spatiotemporal parameters. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the impact of the badminton racket on the amplitude of kinetic and spatiotemporal parameters of wheelchair propulsion, considered as propulsion effectiveness and risk of injury criteria. We hypothesized that holding a badminton racket while propelling the wheelchair modifies the kinetics and temporal parameters of the athlete's propulsion due to the difficulty to hold the handrim, therefore decreasing propulsion effectiveness and increasing risk of injury. Materials and Methods: For six 90-min sessions, 16 able-bodied individuals were introduced to badminton. No injuries hindered their propulsion. They had to propel with and without a racket held on the dominant side along a 20 m straight line at a constant velocity of 5 km/h. They all used the same sports wheelchair equipped with two instrumented wheels (SmartWheel). Results: Participants increased their maximal total force and force rate of rise but decreased their fraction of effective force with their dominant hand compared to the non-dominant hand when using a racket. In addition, they decreased their fraction of effective force, push time, cycle time, and push angle, and increased their maximal propulsive moment, maximal total force, and force rate of rise when comparing the same dominant hand with and without the racket. Discussion: Using a badminton racket modifies the athlete's force application in a way that is generally related to lower propulsion effectiveness and a higher risk for injury. Indeed, it seems that propulsion with a racket prevents from correctly grabbing the handrim.
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".