Comparison of acute and prolonged effects of short-term foamrolling and vibration foam rolling on the properties of kneeextensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Foam Rolling (FR) and Vibration Foam Rolling (VFR) have attracted attention in sports and rehabilitation fields. Previous studies have shown that FR and VFR acute interventions effectively increase the range of movement (ROM) and decrease tissue hardness. For application to sports and rehabilitation, it is necessary to compare the acute and prolonged effects of short duration FR and VFR. Therefore, this study aimed to compare and investigate the acute and prolonged (15 minutes) effects of short duration (30-s) FR and VFR interventions on knee extensors. The subjects were 14 male university students (22.4 ± 1.0 years old), in which the knee extensors of the dominant leg were tested. In a cross-over trial, 30-s of FR or VFR were performed with 2-s rolling of the anterior thigh (15 rolls). The frequency of VFR was 35 Hz. Measurements included knee flexion ROM, pain pressure threshold (PPT), tissue hardness, and countermovement jump height. The results of this study showed no interaction effects for all variables, but main time effects were observed for knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness. Post-hoc tests showed that knee flexion ROM increased up to 10 minutes after the intervention. PPT significantly increased, and tissue hardness significantly decreased up to 15 minutes after intervention. This study showed that 30-s FR and VFR interventions effectively increased ROM, PPT, and decreased tissue hardness. The effects were prolonged up to 10-15 minutes after the intervention. The results of this study show no advantage of VFR over FR with acute short-term interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".