Quantifying the Effects of American Football Shoulder Pads on Reach Distance and Player Perception of Comfort and Fit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The majority of sports equipment research to date has focused on their protective capabilities, and not on how they impact player performance and comfort while using them. Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify the reach distances of players wearing different football shoulder pads and determine player perceptions of shoulder pad comfort and fit. Methods: Football players (n=10) underwent a standardized reach distance protocol comprised of three trials of repeated shoulder flexion, extension, abduction, horizontal flexion, and horizontal extension in each of the three shoulder pad conditions (no shoulder pad, standard shoulder pad, prototype shoulder pad). Player perceptions of shoulder pad comfort and fit, breathability, restrictiveness, and weight were also evaluated using a questionnaire. Reach distances were recorded using five GoPro Hero 9 cameras and analyzed using ProAnalyst®3D motion tracking software. Results: Reach distances were significantly affected during several movements, but especially in the vertical direction, for flexion and abduction, with mean differences between the prototype pad and standard pad of 10.3 cm and 23.1 cm, respectively (P = 0.007 and P = 0.003). Differences in reach distance were greater for the standard shoulder pad than the prototype shoulder pad on average. This indicates that the prototype shoulder pad was less restrictive, which aligned with what players reported. There was significantly more discomfort reported in the neck collar and armpit regions for the standard shoulder pad compared to the prototype pad. Participants also found the prototype shoulder pad to be lighter, and more breathable (P0.05). Conclusion: These results provide manufacturers with valuable insights from a design standpoint, and offer athletes who are looking for superior sport protective equipment key evidence regarding shoulder pad performance, fit, and comfort.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".