Rhythmic Mastery: Biomechanical Investigation of Cycle-tempo Induced Motor Control Changes in Elite Jump Rope Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jump rope is a widely-applied basic training in various sports, yet it is understudied biomechanically. This study investigates the impact of cycle-tempo-induced motor control changes in elite jump rope athletes, addressing the biomechanical gap of cyclic skill control. The hypothesis posited two accelerations per jump cycle—one in front of and one behind the body—and anticipated that increased cycle frequency would alter the distribution of acceleration time within a cycle. Using 3D motion analysis, kinematic parameters were obtained and analyzed. The results confirmed the presence of two distinct accelerations per cycle. As tempo increased, the percentage of rear acceleration time increased while front acceleration time decreased, along with peak velocities increasing significantly (p<0.01). Rope trajectory analysis indicated a consistent movement pattern across tempos, primarily in the sagittal plane. Variations in skill control showed shorter contact phases and reduced vertical range of motion for the center of gravity and feet at higher tempos (p<0.05), along with significant reductions in joint range of motion for the lower limbs (p<0.01). These findings enhance the understanding of motor control adaptations to different tempos and have practical implications for developing coaching programs aimed at optimizing performance, stability, and efficiency in jump rope training.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".