Kinematic data was collected using a 10-camera opto-electronic system at 100 Hz (VICON; Oxford, United Kingdom). Markers were attached bilaterally on the anterior and posterior iliac spines, lateral epicondyles of the femur, lateral malleolus of the fibula. For the prosthetic side, lateral malleolus location was approximated as the distal end of the rigid pylon. Ground reaction forces were measured at 1000 Hz using two force plates (0.60 × 0.40 m. Kistler: Winterthur, Switzerland) embedded in the middle of the walkway. Gait speed while crossing the force plates was monitored using two photocells (Microgate Racetime 2; Bolzano, Italy).
Racetime 2
Manufactured by Microgate
Sourced in Italy
Racetime 2 is a lab equipment product designed for timing and monitoring purposes. It provides precise measurements and data capture capabilities for scientific and research applications.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
15 protocols using racetime 2
1
Gait Analysis of Prosthetic Limbs
2
Maximal Skating Speed Measurement
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Players were instructed to take their standing position on the goal line. The trial was started by skating toward the opposite goal line and around the net in an anticlockwise fashion toward the sprint line. An automatic laser timing system (Microgate, Racetime 2, Bolzano, Italy) measured the maximum speed while skating. The starting and finishing sensors were set on the opposing blue lines 50 ft apart (Figure 3 ). Time to calculate top speed was measured to the nearest 0.01 s. One trial was performed crossing over to the right and the other crossing over to the left. Rest time between sprints was 6 minutes, during which the player performed stretching and very light activities only [13 (link)].
3
Repeated Sprint Ability (RSA) Test
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
This test involved sprinting an 89 m skating course – goal line to goal line (54 m) and back to the blue line (35 m) – as quickly as possible, and then returning to the starting line slowly. This was repeated 6 times, with 30 s recovery including the slow skating time required to return to the starting line. Figure 4 illustrates the course of skating of RSA. Subjects performed 5 minutes of individualized warm up before testing. All times were recorded by a set of photocells (Microgate Racetime 2, Bolzano, Italy). Fatigue index (FI) was calculated as follows [22 (link)]:
4
Assessing Forward and Backward Skating Performance
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The subjects were required to start from the goal line and skate forward with maximal effort for 30 m distance on a straight line (Figure 2 ). All subjects performed this test twice, with a break of 10 min, and the fastest performance was recorded. During the break between two trials, players followed self-selected low intensity active recovery [13 (link)]. After a break of 15 min rest, backward skating was performed from the same starting line. The protocol of forward and backward skating was similar. Both the forward and backward skating started after the player remained at standstill close to the starting line. The forward and backward skating time and velocity were measured using a photocell automatic laser timing system (Microgate, Racetime 2, Bolzano, Italy). The starting and finishing sensors were placed 30 m apart on the ice. Sprint time was measured to the nearest 0.01 s. Photocells were set at 0, 5, 10, and 30 m distance. Average speed while skating forward was designated as forward average skating speed (FASS), and similarly, the average speed attained while skating backward was called backward average skating speed (BASS).
5
Reliable 10m Sprint Testing Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
All 10 m sprints were performed in a sports hall with ample space to conduct both the 10 m sprint assessment and the gluteal warm-up protocol. Sprint times over 5 and 10 m were recorded using Racetime 2, dual-beam timing gates (Microgate, Botzano, Italy). The timing gates were positioned at the 0 m, 5 m and 10 m mark and set at a height of 0.8 m using methods similar to Whelan et al. (2014) (link). Participants were required to start each sprint from a standard two point (standing) starting position with their front foot placed behind a line 0.7 m from the first set of timing gates thus ensuring that they did not trigger the timing gates before the start of each sprint. Dual beam timing gates are considered reliable as a means of testing 10 m sprinting performance for they eliminate the occurrence of false signals when compared to single beam timing gates (Earp and Newton, 2012 (link)). The three baseline trials for all participants were used to confirm the reliability of the testing equipment and protocols. The reported ICC for 10 m time was 0.955 and the coefficient of variation (CV) was 1.4%. Research suggests that a test is only deemed reliable if the CV ≤ 10% and the ICC ≥ 0.80 (Hopkins, 2000 (link)). Based on this the 10 m sprint test procedure for the present study was reliable.
6
20-Meter Sprint Performance Test
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
In the first day two 20 m trials were performed. The sprint trials were recorded by photocells (Racetime 2; Microgate, Bolzano, Italy), based on a radio impulse transmission system and a reflection system. Runs were performed from static biped start position with the start line located 1 m behind the first photocell. The rest of the photocells were placed at 10 and 20 m. The best time of the two 20 m trials was recorded. The rest period between sets lasted 3 min. The sprint test (20 m) was conducted on a synthetic running track in an indoor hall.
7
200m Running Track Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
This test was performed on a synthetic running outdoor track (Mondo). Wind conditions were monitored constantly by an Oregon Scientific WMR-918 (Oregon Scientific, Tigard, OR, USA) meteorological station. A mathematical model (Quinn, 2003 (link)) was used in order to adjust the potential influence of wind in the time performances. This mathematical model suggests that a head wind of −2.0 or −1.0 m·s−1 causes a time lost of 0.121 and 0.059 s respectively, and that a tail wind of +2.0 or +1.0 causes a time gain of 0.112 and 0.056 s respectively. Just one 200 m trial was performed. The procedures were the same as the above mentioned for the 20 m test. Two pairs of photocells (Racetime 2; Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) were used for timing recordings.
8
Sprint Performance Assessment
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Five metre, 10 m and 20 m sprint performance, from a standing start 20 cm behind the start line, were performed on an indoor sprint track and were recorded using timing gates (Microgate Racetime 2, Bolzano, Italy). Participants were instructed to sprint through the timing gates as fast as possible and each participant completed three sprints with a rest time of 120 s between sprints. Interclass correlations from reliability trials at IT Carlow for this protocol are 0.89–0.98.
9
40-Meter Sprint Performance Assessment
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Subjects were assessed over a 40-m linear sprint test with split times in 10-m (T10-m), 30-m (T30-m) and 40-m (T40-m). The 40-m sprint test was conducted outdoors with suitable weather conditions (i.e., sunny and no wind) on an artificial turf field. Sprint time was recorded with photoelectric cells (Racetime2, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). The front foot was placed 0.5-m before the first timing gate, and players started when ready eliminating reaction time. Subjects were given 2 practice trials performed at half speed after a thorough warm-up to familiarize them with the timing device. Two trials were completed, and the best performance trial was used for the subsequent statistical analysis. Two minutes of passive rest were permitted between 40 m trials. Players’ acceleration was defined as their first 10-m sprint time (T10-m), and maximal sprint speed as the running speed attained during the 30-40-m split time [39 (link)].
10
Repeated Sprint Ability Test
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The repeated sprint ability test, which attempts to quantify fatigue by comparing actual performance to an imagined “ideal performance”, consisted of 6 times 24.69 m (3 times 8.23 m, corresponding to the width of the tennis court) of discontinuous sprints, interspersed with 30 s of walking recovery. The timing gates were positioned in the width of the court, at the opposite of the court’s two single lines. Subjects were instructed to run as fast as possible from one side to another 3 times from an initial standing start. Subjects started the test from a static position 30 cm behind the photocells, with timing starting once the beams of the first timing gate (0 m) were broken. Speed was measured to the nearest 0.001 s. A photoelectric cell timing system (Racetime2, Microgate®, Bolzano, Italy) linked to a digital chronoscope was used to record each sprint and rest interval time with an accuracy of 0.001 s. Fatigability (percent decrease in time between the fastest and slowest sprints) and sprint decrement score (Sdec) were calculated from sprint times using the following formula : Fatigue (%) = −((slowest sprint-fastest sprint)/fastest sprint)×100; Sdec (%) = −(((Sprint 1 time + Sprint 2 time + … + Sprint 6 time)/Best sprint time × number of sprints)-1)×100 [16 (link)].
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!