The effect of Fatigue on Lower Limb Coordination Characteristics in Badminton forehand smash: a Functional Principal Component Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of motor coordination explores how the central nervous system controls body movements. Using functional principal component analysis (FPCA), this study examined the impact of fatigue on limb coordination synergies and activity coefficients in 23 badminton players performing forehand smashes before and after fatigue. Kinematic data revealed that pre-fatigue, three coordination synergies effectively controlled all lower limb joints, while post-fatigue, four synergies were required, reflecting increased control complexity. Fatigue significantly altered synergy control: Synergy 2's control of the hip joint decreased, control of the right ankle increased (p < 0.05), and Synergy 3's control of the left ankle decreased (p < 0.05). Fatigue also shifted synergy activity, enhancing Synergy 3 control during landing while reducing Synergy 1 control in the follow-through. These findings highlight how fatigue modifies coordination strategies, increasing joint control complexity, with implications for training to enhance performance stability and reduce injury risks.
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 | 0.001 | 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".