UPPER -LIMB KINEMATICS AND COORDINATION OF SHORT GRIP … · 51 Nourrit et al. , 2003; Vereijken et al. , 1992) or performed swings under the parallel 52 bars in gymnastics (Delignières

1

UPPER-LIMB KINEMATICS AND COORDINATION OF SHORT GRIP

AND CLASSIC DRIVES IN FIELD HOCKEY

P. BRETIGNY*, L. SEIFERT, D. LEROY, D. CHOLLET

C.E.T.A.P.S. UPRES EA 3832: University of Rouen, Faculty of Sports Sciences,

France

*Authors to whom all correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed

Perrine Brétigny

University of Rouen

Faculty of Sports Sciences

CETAPS

Bld Siegfried

76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex

France

e-mail: [email protected]

Tel: (33) 232 10 77 92

Fax: (33) 232 10 77 93

Key words

biomechanics, motor control, field hockey drive, expertise.

Date of resubmission

March 2008

Page 1 of 30 Journal of Applied Biomechanics © 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

2

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the upper-limb kinematics and coordination of

the short grip and classic drives in field hockey. Ten elite female players participated

in the experiment. The VICONTM system was used to record the displacement of

markers placed on the stick and the players’ joints during five short grip and five

classic drives. Kinematic and coordination parameters were analysed. The ball’s

velocity was recorded by a radar device that also served as the drive target.

Kinematic differences were noted between the two drive conditions, with shorter

duration and smaller overall amplitude in the short grip drive, explained by the

shorter lever arm and the specific context in which it is used. No differences were

noted for upper-limb coordination. In both types of stick holding, an inter-limb

dissociation was noted on the left side, whereas the right inter-limb coordination was

in-phase. Moreover, the time lag increased in the disto-proximal direction,

suggesting wrist uncocking before impact and the initiation of descent motion by the

left shoulder. Medio-lateral analysis confirmed these results: coordination of left-

right limbs converged at the wrist but dissociated with more proximal joints (elbows

and shoulders).

Page 2 of 30Journal of Applied Biomechanics © 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc.

3

Introduction1

Field hockey games are often characterised by a high density of players in certain 2

parts of the field, which puts the players under intense temporal pressure. Long 3

propulsions usually serve to give velocity to the game and to pass the ball to players 4

in free spaces. The two most common drives used to send the ball long distances are: 5

the classic field hockey drive, with the hands joined together on the top of the stick, 6

and the short grip drive, with the hands also joined but held lower on the stick hose7

(the highest part of the stick that players grip). Experts can perform these two drives, 8

which serve two main purposes: shooting for goal and passing to players several 9

meters away. Although cultural factors seem to influence the choice of one drive 10

rather than the other, the principal factor is a tactical consideration in response to 11

temporal pressure. With a shorter lever arm, the short grip drive is often chosen for 12

rapid actions to counter-balance the opposing defence, while the classic drive is more 13

often used for placed attack schemes. Thus, the mastery of these drives also depends 14

on the player’s field position. Mid and forward positions impose high pressure from 15

opponents, because the density of players is greatest in these parts of the field. 16

Moreover, the passes in this field section are shorter. Players in these positions use 17

the short grip drive more frequently than players in the back field, who benefit from 18

more time to play and thus often choose the classic drive to give more velocity to the 19

ball. The advantage of the classic drive seems to be in power, whereas the interest of 20

the short grip drive lies in its short duration, especially from the beginning of the 21

drive to the impact with the ball.22

There is little information in the scientific literature on these drives and their uses. 23

The few studies on the biomechanics of field hockey have essentially been kinematic 24

analyses of the classic drive (Burgess-Limericket al., 1991; Faque, 1987; Francks et 25


4

al., 1985; Kusuhara, 1993; Whitaker, 1992). Little is known about limb organisation. 26

Notably, Francks et al. (1985) reported that the drive is performed in a manner 27

similar to that of a golf or baseball swing (i.e. a biphasic movement consisting of an 28

initial backswing, followed by a downswing). Some authors have emphasised a third 29

phase just after ball impact, the follow-through or finish, even though the stick is no 30

longer in contact with the ball (Faque, 1987; Kusuhara, 1993; Whitaker, 1992). 31

These authors assume that this last part of the drive has an impact on ball direction 32

and precision, and plays a role in reducing injuries. The results concerning phase 33

duration and variability in the stick’s movement through space have been conflicting. 34

Burgess-Limerick et al. (1991) and Francks et al. (1985) observed that experts show 35

great spatial and temporal variability in their attempts to produce a consistent and 36

accurate downswing. Conversely, Kusuhara (1993) showed greater spatial and 37

temporal drive reproducibility for intermediate and trained players than for 38

beginners. But, first, the methods used were different and the cycle was not clearly 39

defined by key points. Second, several types of drive are used to hit the ball. These 40

conflicting results thus suggest the complexity of the field hockey drive and the need 41

for not only a clarification of its kinematic features, but also a coordination analysis, 42

by a comparison of the two types of drive. 43

In fact, coordination analysis would provide further insight into the study of these 44

drives, because it is an explanatory feature of complex skills and expertise analysis. 45

Haken et al. (1985) pointed out the interest of inter-limb coordination analysis and 46

modelled coordination dynamics to better understand motor control when the control 47

parameter was changed. The dynamic approach was extended from bimanual 48

coordination to various complex skills in order to analyse the motor control of 49

subjects as they used a ski simulator (Delignières et al., 1999; Nourrit et al., 2000; 50


5

Nourrit et al., 2003; Vereijken et al., 1992) or performed swings under the parallel 51

bars in gymnastics (Delignières et al., 1998) and serves in volleyball (Temprado et 52

al., 1997). In these activities, coordination differences were noted between novices 53

and experts, with a release of degrees of freedom for experts. For the volleyball 54

serve, experts used anti-phase shoulder-wrist coupling, suggesting limb dissociation 55

(Temprado et al., 1997). In gymnastics, experts developed partial decoupling in order 56

to overcome spontaneous tendencies highly constrained by the intrinsic dynamics of 57

the system (Delignières et al., 1998). The coordination of the upper-body limbs in 58

field hockey has been described as a succession of segmental accelerations, 59

proceeding from the most proximal to the most distal and serving to maximize the 60

stick speed at ball impact (Faque, 1987), but no published study has analysed the 61

upper inter-limb coordination during drive performance. 62

Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the upper-limb kinematics and 63

coordination of the two expert field hockey drives (classic and short grip).64

We hypothesised that the two drives would show kinematic differences but similar 65

upper-limb coordination. More specifically, we expected that 1) the short grip drive 66

would require less time to perform than the classic drive, thus being more effective in 67

the context of temporal urgency, and 2) the expert players would adopt upper-limb 68

dissociation in both drives to maximize the final velocity given to the ball at impact.69

70

Methods 71

Subjects72

Ten female field hockey players participated in the study (age: 23.9±4.8 years, 73

height: 168.2±6.3 cm, and mass: 60.1±7.2 kg). All played at the elite national level 74

and either had been or still were on the national team. All had been training for 75


6

12.3±5 years. The players provided informed written consent to participate in the 76

study, which was approved by the University ethics committee.77

78

Protocol79

A radar speed detection device (Speed ChekTM, Tribar Industries Inc., Ontario, 80

Canada) was used to obtain ball velocity after impact.81

The VICONTM optoelectronic system (Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK) measured the 82

kinematic parameters during the drives, with five cameras operating at 50 frames per 83

second placed around the player (Atha, 1984). According to Shannon’s theorem 84

(movement frequency must be equal to or greater than twice the signal frequency) 85

(Shannon & Weaver, 1963), 50 Hz was sufficient to analyse the field hockey drive, 86

which is a 1-Hz frequency movement. The calibrated volume resolution was 2 m (Z 87

or vertical axis) / 2 m (X or medio lateral axis) / 3 m (Y or anterio-posterior axis), in 88

order to record all phases of the drive. The experimental space was statically and 89

dynamically calibrated and passive reflective markers were fixed with double-face 90

adhesive tape on the following anatomical sites: the left and right acromio-clavicular 91

joints (Lsho and Rsho), the epicondyles of each arm (Lelb and Relb), and the left and 92

right apophysis styloïd radius (Lwri and Rwri). With the VICON system, at a 93

sampling frequency of 50 Hz, the maximal error was 1° for the two large angle 94

cameras and 0.5° for the three other cameras. Errors due to skin movements were 95

reduced by placing the markers where the skin is thin and therefore primarily moves 96

with the underlying bone structure (Dujardin et al., 1997). Two other markers were 97

placed on the stick, one at the head (croB), and one 45 cm away from the first 98

(croH). The hockey players were dressed in shorts and bras, wore their own hockey 99

shoes, and used their own sticks, in order not to disturb their drives. However, all the 100


7

sticks were similar in height, weight, and composition to ensure equal shooting 101

conditions. Each subject performed ten drives while standing with her left foot next 102

to the ball, which had been placed on a mark on the floor. Five drives were classic 103

(hands joined at the top of the stick) and five were short grip (hands joined lower on 104

the stick hose). Practice trials were allowed to ensure that the players were 105

comfortable with the experimental procedure. Each subject was asked to hit the ball 106

as if she were passing the ball to a player situated about 20 m away (distance 107

representative of field hockey match passes). They were asked to aim at the radar 108

device, which was on the floor, just behind the nylon indoor protection net (1.2 m 109

high and placed 1.6 m away from the player to prevent accidental damage to 110

equipment), and served as the target. Trials in which the ball landed 0.05 m or more 111

from this target were not analysed because these were considered not to respect the 112

precision conditions. In this case, subjects performed additional trials to record ten 113

accurate drives. Each drive was also assessed in terms of the ball velocity measured 114

by the radar. Synthetic carpet was placed on the ground to reproduce match 115

conditions.116

The drive was divided into the following three phases:117

1. Backswing, corresponding to the stick motion away from the ground. The 118

players were allowed to begin their swing wherever they wanted as long as 119

the stick motion was away from the ground. 120

2. Downswing, corresponding to stick motion in the opposite direction, from the 121

highest point to impact with the ball.122

3. Follow-throw or finish, from impact to the end of the drive, which 123

corresponded to the highest point reached by the stick at the end of the 124

movement just before the player became relaxed.125


8

For the two drives, the left hand is placed higher than the right one on the stick hose126

(the highest part of the stick that players grip). The left arm then guides the stick 127

motion (lead arm), whereas the right one serves as a support to the movement (trail 128

arm).129

Insert figure 1130

131

The kinematic analyses were based on the right wrist displacements in the frontal 132

plane during the entire stroke, and the ball velocity. Analyses in the three planes 133

were performed before the experiment and the greatest variations in amplitude were 134

observed in the vertical plane. The choice was thus made to concentrate on this 135

macroscopic variable of the movement, which best typifies the coordination, in 136

accordance with the principles of dynamic approaches (Kelso, 1984 for bimanual 137

coordination). The absolute duration of each drive and each phase was then 138

established, using the right wrist height peaks as the reference to delimit the phase of 139

the movement (Gatt et al., 1998). In fact, at 50 Hz, the data losses for the two 140

markers placed on the stick were too numerous to permit the use of the stick as the 141

reference for determining the beginning and end of each drive phase. To compare the 142

drives, the relative duration of each phase was then calculated, in percentage of 143

cycle.144

Upper-limb coordination was analysed by punctual (measures made at discrete 145

instants) estimations of the relative phase (RP) calculated at ball impact, according to 146

Kusuhara (1993) who showed that this point was a determinant factor of expertise. 147

These punctual estimations of RP were used to analyse the proximo-distal and 148

medio-lateral couplings between the different joints: 1) proximo-distal coupling: 149

RP=(tdistal/tproximal)*360, where tdistal and tproximal are the time for the distal and the 150


9

proximal joints to reach their minimal height, and 2) medio-lateral coupling: 151

RP=(tright/tleft)*360, where tright and tleft are the time for the right and the left joints to 152

reach their minimal height (Hamill et al., 2000). The data are circular so a 360°angle 153

corresponds to a 0°angle. For all values superior to 360, the formula 360-value was 154

used in order to have all angles between 0° to 360°.155

Concerning the right proximo-distal analysis (trail arm), five levels of coupling were 156

examined using the following markers: PD1 for croB and croH coupling, PD2 for 157

Rwri and croH coupling, PD3 for Relb and Rwri coupling, PD4 for Rsho and Relb 158

coupling, and PD5 for Rsho and Rwri coupling. For the left proximo-distal analysis 159

(lead arm), these five levels of coupling were also examined using the left markers.160

For medio-lateral coordination, three levels of coupling were compared: L1 for the 161

Rwri and Lwri relationship, L2 for the Relb and Lelb relationship, and L3 for the 162

Rsho and Lsho relationship.163

According to Dietrich and Warren (1995), the in-phase mode of coordination 164

corresponds to 0±30° values of RP and the anti-phase mode corresponds to 180±30° 165

values of RP. For field hockey analysis, values between 30° and 330° correspond to 166

an out-of-phase mode, whereas 0±30° values correspond to an in-phase mode.167

168

Statistical analysis169

For kinematic parameters, normal distribution (Ryan Joiner test) and homogeneity of 170

variance (Bartlett test) allowed parametric statistics. 171

A one-way ANOVA [condition (2 levels: short grip drive, classic drive)] was 172

performed on the values of ball velocity after impact, the absolute total duration, the 173

relative duration of each phase (backswing, downswing, and finish) and the right 174


10

wrist/subject heights ratio at each key point (beginning of the drive, highest point, 175

impact, and end of the drive). 176

Mean and SD were calculated for each variables. RMS (root Mean Square) was 177

established for the displacement measures, in order to estimate the magnitude of the 178

varying quantity, using the formula: rms=√((x1²+x2²+...+xn²)/N); with x1, x2...xn =the 179

n values of the variable studied, and N = the number of values.180

Linear data processing was performed with Minitab 14.10 (Minitab Inc., 2004). 181

182

For upper-limb coordination parameters, Watson Williams F-tests [proximo-distal 183

(five levels: croB/croH, croH/wrist, wrist/elbow, elbow/shoulder, wrist/shoulder) and 184

medio-lateral (three levels: wrists, elbows, shoulders)] were used to compare RP, in 185

order to determine:186

• The differences between the short grip drive and the classic drive for each 187

level of coupling,188

• The differences between the proximal and distal joint coordination, and 189

between the medial and lateral joint coordination, for each condition.190

Circular data processing (Baschelet, 1981) was performed with Oriana 2.0 (W. 191

Kovach Computing Services, 1994-2003). 192

For all tests, the level of significance was set at 0.05.193

194

Results195

First, kinematic parameters will be presented, followed by coordination estimates.196

The way the stick was held did not change the ball velocity after impact (71.98±1.33 197

km.h-1 for the short grip drive and 71.09±1.75 km.h-1 for the classic drive) (F1,88=0.2, 198

p=0.7). 199


11

As well, the short grip drive took significantly less time to perform than the classic 200

drive (0.96±0.03s vs. 1.04±0.02s) (F1,82=7.2, p<0.05).201

Differences between short grip and classic drives downswing relative duration was 202

not significant. As a result, the backswing of the short grip drive had a shorter 203

relative duration than with the classic drive (F1,82=0.8, p<0.05) , conversely the finish 204

of the short grip had a longer relative duration (F1,82=1.8, p<0.05). 205

206

Insert Table 1207

208

Wrist/subject height values were significantly lower with the short grip drive at each 209

key point: for the beginning of the drive (short grip: mean of 0.46±0.09cm, 210

RMS=0.47, vs. classic drive: mean of 0.48±0.09cm, RMS=0.49; F1,82=1.4, p<0.05); 211

the highest point (0.6±0.06cm, RMS=0.6 vs. 0.63±0.07cm, RMS=0.63; F1,82=4, 212

p<0.05); the impact (0.34±0.02cm, RMS=0.34 vs. 0.38±0.02cm, RMS=0.38; 213

F1,82=49, p<0.05); and the end of the drive (0.58±0.08cm, RMS=0.6 vs.214

0.63±0.08cm, RMS=0.6; F1,82=5.5, p<0.05).215

216

Few differences were observed concerning the proximo-distal and medio-lateral 217

coordination parameters.218

For the five levels of coupling, the right (trail) proximo-distal coordination was in-219

phase (RP values between 0° and 30° or between 330° and 360°). Significant 220

differences were observed only between the stick and the body parts (F4,39=9.4 and 221

F4,39=7.6, respectively, for the short grip drive and the classic drive, p<0.05). There 222

were no significant difference between the two conditions (F1,12=0.383; F1,12=1.144; 223


12

F1,18=0.22; F1,18=0.594; and F1,18=0.587, respectively, for PD1, PD2, PD3, PD4, and 224

PD5; all p>0.05) (see Table 2 and Fig. 1).225

226

Insert Table 2 and Figure 2227

Concerning left (lead) proximo-distal coordination, for the two conditions, 228

significant differences were noted between the stick and joints, and between the 229

different joints (F4,39=32.18 and F4,39=16.5, respectively, for the short grip drive and 230

the classic drive; all p<0.05) (see Table 2 and Fig. 2). Here the coordination was out-231

of-phase (RP values between 30° and 330°).232

There were no significant difference between the two conditions (F1,12=0.383; 233

F1,12=1.202; F1,18=0.262; F1,18=0.006; and F1,18=0.133, respectively, for PD1, PD2, 234

PD3, PD4, and PD5; all p>0.05)235

236

Insert Figure 3237

238

Finally, no significant difference in the medio-lateral organisation was noted between 239

the two conditions. Therefore, Figure 4 illustrates the couplings of the right and left 240

joints for the mean of the two conditions. The coordination between the left and right 241

wrists was in-phase whereas the coordination between the left and right elbows, and 242

between the right and left shoulders, was out-of-phase (see Table 3). This time lag in 243

the coupling was greater at the proximal levels (F2,27=62.9 and F2,27=32.5, 244

respectively, for the short grip drive and the classic drive; all p<0.05). 245

246

Insert Table 3 and Figure 4 247

248


13

Discussion249

Results showed no influence of stick holding on the ball velocity. Nethertheless, with 250

a shorter duration and a smaller overall amplitude, the short grip drive should have 251

presented a smaller ball velocity at release. But in the present experiment, in order to 252

prevent accidental damage to equipment, the subjects were asked to hit the ball as if 253

they were passing it to a player situated about 20 m away. Without this instruction, 254

players may have hit the ball stronger with the classic drive. For passing the ball, the 255

short grip drive seems to have produced a similar final ball velocity, with a smaller 256

absolute total duration, which offers strategic advantages.257

The shorter total time to perform the short grip drive (0.99s vs. 1.04s for classic 258

drive) can be explained by the position of the hands on the stick. Kusuhara (1993), in 259

his study comparing the classic drive in experts, intermediates and novices, reported 260

a longer total time than that of this experiment (1.12s vs. 1.04s). But these results 261

should be interpreted with caution because time decomposition is difficult, especially 262

for the beginning and end of the drive. 263

Concerning the relative temporal parameters, the general organisation of the stroke 264

was similar to that described by Kusuhara (1993), with the shortest phase being the 265

downswing, followed by the finish and then the backswing, and this for the three 266

levels of practice: beginner, intermediate and trained. This suggests a higher velocity 267

and / or shorter displacement during the downswing. 268

The comparison of the short grip and classic drives showed significant differences 269

only for the relative durations of the backswing and finish. These results agree with 270

the literature regarding the influences of uncertainty and material constraints on a 271

field hockey drive or a golf swing. Burgess-Limerick et al. (1991) and Francks et al. 272

(1985) reported that experts maintained the temporal consistency of the downswing 273


14

until impact with the ball. In golf, Nagao and Sawada (1973) and, more recently, 274

Egret et al. (2003) reported similar results, with temporal consistency in the 275

downswing but spatial variability in the backswing, in relation with the use of 276

different clubs. Delay et al. (1997) also showed that for long target distances, players 277

increase the downswing amplitude (spatial parameter) but maintain the same 278

movement time in order to increase club velocity at ball contact. In this study, the 279

subjects were constrained by a technical parameter: holding the stick. This had an 280

influence on the kinematic parameters, but, as in the studies presented above, 281

temporal consistency of the downswing was preserved. The backswing phase was 282

shorter in the short grip drive than in the classic drive, and, as a consequence, the 283

short grip finish phase was longer. These results can be explained by the different 284

ways the two types of drives are used. The short grip drive is often used for rapid 285

actions in a context of temporal pressure, i.e. the offense / defence challenge. In 286

response to this pressure, players reduce their preparation time, which is represented 287

by the backswing, in order to hit the ball as quickly as possible and thus reduce 288

telegraphing their intentions to the opposing players. The time saved by reducing the 289

relative duration of the backswing is then used for the finish to adjust ball direction 290

and accuracy.291

To complete the kinematic analysis, a spatial parameter, the right wrist/subject height 292

ratio was used. The results showed that values were significantly lower with the short 293

grip drive than with the classic drive. The hands were placed lower on the stick hose 294

in the short grip drive, so they were closer to the ground, giving a smaller overall 295

amplitude. 296


15

In summary, the kinematic parameters revealed differences in the short grip and 297

classic drives that justify their use in different contexts in relation with tactical 298

intentions. 299

In order to better understand the complexity of the movement, a coordination 300

analysis was performed on the upper-body limbs: no significant difference was noted 301

in the proximo-distal and medio-lateral organisation of the upper limbs between the 302

two conditions of drive. 303

In many throwing sports, final velocity is maximised by an inter-limb dissociation. 304

Fradet et al. (2004) reported several studies in which the fastest throwing action is 305

accomplished with a proximal-to-distal progression. This proximo-distal sequence 306

can be illustrated by the sudy of linear or angular velocities with maxima of the 307

proximal segments appearing before those of distal segments. This movement 308

organisation is considered to be the most efficient for mechanical and muscular 309

reasons. Gonzalez and Dietrich (2003) introduced a biomechanical model for 310

analysing javelin throw movement to determine how the maximal velocity at release 311

time is reached. The linear joint velocity study showed a successive rise in the speed 312

peaks, from the hip to the javelin, passing by the shoulder, the elbow and the wrist of 313

the throwing arm. Mero et al. (1994) found similar results that they attributed to a 314

transfer of kinetic energy, allowing progressive and successive summation of one 315

body limb to another. This concept of energy flow was also advanced for the 316

handball overarm throw (Jöris et al., 1985). The consecutive actions of the body 317

segments, from the proximal to the distal segments, were demonstrated to be 318

important for the optimal flow of energy to the ball during the last phase of the 319

throw. In our study, vertical joint displacements were used to obtain RP estimation at 320

ball impact. The results showed that, for the right side, joint displacements were in-321


16

phase, meaning that the minimal heights of the joints were reached simultaneously 322

(RP=0° or 360° ±30°). The proximo-distal differences were significant only between 323

the stick and body parts, which can be explained by stick rotations in the hands. 324

For the left side, the same stick/body differences were observed, but the inter-limb 325

coordination was out-of-phase (i.e. the minimal heights of the joints were reached at 326

different moments in the movement, RP values between 30° and 330°). This 327

indicated a time lag between the left shoulder and elbow, shoulder and wrist, and 328

between elbow and wrist. This time lag increased significantly in the disto-proximal329

direction, which means that the stick descent motion until ball contact was initiated 330

by the left shoulder (lead arm), right arm (trail one) serving to support the movement. 331

This inter-limb dissociation agrees with the findings of Temprado et al. (1997), who 332

studied the volleyball serve by comparing the upper inter-limb coordination of 333

novices and experts. The novices used their arms as a single rigid limb, whereas the 334

experts displayed spatial and temporal inter-limb dissociation. This was revealed by 335

in-phase couplings for the novices and an anti-phase coordination (RP=180°) 336

between the shoulder and wrist for the experts. This shoulder-wrist relationship 337

implies wrist uncocking (rapid movement from full wrist extension to flexion) in 338

order to ensure a mechanically effective movement. In our study, the relationship 339

between the shoulder and wrist was not in anti-phase. But, statistical analysis showed 340

a significant difference between the coupling of these two joints and the other pairs, 341

indicating a longer time lag. The left shoulder initiated the movement of the stick and 342

arrived earlier at ball contact. Thus, wrist uncocking can also be assumed for the 343

field hockey drive, which would agree with Whitaker’s description (1992). He 344

observed wrist uncocking just before ball impact, which served to accelerate the 345

movement. Similar results were advanced by Faque (1987), who reported a time lag 346


17

effect for the arms. This was shown by successive accelerations to give a greater 347

final velocity to the ball. In golf, Egret et al. (2004) showed the same phenomenon, 348

indicating that the swing should start with movements of the more proximal 349

segments and progress with faster movements of the more distal segments to 350

optimise final speed. For the field hockey drive, studies on left wrist velocity and 351

acceleration are needed to confirm wrist uncocking just before the impact with the 352

ball.353

The results for medio-lateral coordination were similar to those for proximo-distal354

coordination. Indeed, whereas the left and right wrists were in-phase, the shoulders 355

and elbows were out-of-phase. Significant differences were noted between the levels 356

of coupling, revealing a greater time lag between the two shoulders than between the 357

two elbows. Given the focal boundary condition of the hands on 358

the stick, coordination of the left-right segment converged at the wrist but dissociated 359

with more proximal joints (elbows and shoulders).360

361

In summary, the short grip and classic drives in field hockey differ kinematically. 362

With a shorter lever arm, the short grip drive requires less time and has a narrower 363

range of movement than the classic drive. These characteristics explain why field 364

hockey players more often use this drive for rapid actions, in the context of intense 365

temporal pressure. One consequence of its use in this type of context is that less time 366

is given to the backswing than is given in the classic drive. Despite these kinematic 367

differences, the upper inter-limb coordination was similar in the two drive 368

conditions. A proximo-distal dissociation was noted on the lead side, with a 369

relatively long time lag between the shoulder and wrist, suggesting medio-lateral 370

dissociation. This left wrist delay suggests wrist uncocking before impact with the 371


18

ball but further research is needed to confirm this. To confirm these results, it would 372

be interesting to perform the same experiment on a field hockey pitch. The protection 373

net would no longer be necessary as risks of damage to equipment would be 374

eliminated. This would make the task more realistic but would also require portable 375

equipment for the motion analysis.376

4318 words.377


19

References

Atha, J. (1984). Current techniques for mesuring motion. Applied Ergonomics, 15,

245-257.

Baschelet, E. (1981). Circular statistics in biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Burgess-Limerick, R., Abernethy, B., & Neal, R.J. (1991). Experience and

backswing movement time variability. A short note concerning a serenditipous

observation. Human Movement Science, 10, 621-627.

Delay, D., Nougier, V., Orliaguet, J.P., & Coello, Y. (1997). Movement control in

golf putting. Human Movement Science, 16, 597-619.

Delignières, D., Nourrit, D., Deschamps, T., Lauriot, B., & Caillou, N. (1999).

Effects of practice and task constraints on stiffness and friction functions in

biological movements. Human Movement Science, 18, 769-793.

Delignières, D., Nourrit, D., Sioud, R., Leroyer, P., Zattara, M., & Micaleff, J.P.

(1998). Preferred coordination modes in the first steps of the learning of a complex

gymnastics skill. Human Mouvement Science, 17, 221-241.

Dietrich, F.J., & Warren, W.H. (1995). Why change gaits? Dynamics of the walk-run

transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and

Performance, 21, 183-202.

Dujardin, F.H., Ertaud, J.Y., Aucouturier, T., Nguen, J., & Thomine, J.M. (1997).

Smoothing technique using Fourier transforms applies to stereometric data obtained

from optoelectronic recordings of human gait. Human Movement Science, 529, 1-8.

Egret, C., Dujardin, F., Weber, J., & Chollet D. (2004). 3D kinematic analysis of the

golf swings of expert and experienced golfers. Journal of Human Movement Studies,

47,193-204.


20

Egret, C.I., Vincent, O., Weber, J., Dujardin, F.H., & Chollet, D. (2003). Analysis of

3D kinematics concerning three different clubs in golf swing. International Journal

of Sports Medicine, 24, 465-469.

Faque, V. (1987). Approche biomécanique du shoot. Monographie BE2, INSEP,

France.

Fradet, L., Botcazou, M., Durocher, C., Cretual, A., Multon, F., Prioux, J., &

Delamarche, P. (2004). Do handball throws always exhibit a proximal-to-distal

segmental sequence? Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 439-447.

Francks Ian, M., Weicker, D., & Robertson, D.G.E. (1985). The kinematics,

movement phasing and timing of a skilled action in response to varying conditions of

uncertainty. Human Movement Science, 4, 91-105.

Gatt, C.J., Pavol, M.J., Parker, M.D., & Grabiner, M.D. (1998). Three dimensional

knee joint kinematics during a golf swing. The American Journal of Sports Medicine,

26, 285-294.

Gonzalez, D., & Dietrich, G. (2003). Three-dimensional kinematics analysis of

javelin throw: from real situation to biomechanical model. Sciences & Sport, 18,

216-218.

Hamill, J., Haddad, J.M., & Mc Dermott, W.J. (2000). Issues in quantifying

variability from a dynamic system perspective. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 16,

407-418.

Haken, H., Kelso, J.A., & Bunz, H. (1985). A theorical model of phase transitions in

human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics, 51, 347-356.


21

Jöris, H.J.J., Edwards van Muyen, A.J., Van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & Kemper, H.C.G.

(1985). Force, velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball

players. Journal of Biomechanics, 18, 409-414.

Kelso, J.A.S. (1984). Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual

coordination. American Journal of Physiology, Regulatory, Integrative and

Comparative Physiology, 15, R1000-R1004.

Kusuhara, K. (1993). Kinematic analysis of field hockey stroke. Proceeding of

International Society of Biomechanics XIVth Congress, 734-735.

Mero, A., Komi, P.V., Korjus, T., Navarro, E., & Gregor, R.J. (1994). Body segment

contribution to javelin throwing during final thrust phases. Journal of Applied

Biomechanics, 10, 166-177.

Nagao, N., & Sawada, Y. (1973). A kinematic analysis in golf swing concerning

driver shot and No. 9 iron shot. Journal of Sports Medicine, 13, 4-16.

Nourrit, D., Delignières, D., Caillou, N., Deschamps, T., & Lauriot, B. (2003). On

discontinuities in motor learning: a longitudinal study of complex skill acquisition on

a ski-simulator. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 151-170.

Nourrit, D., Deschamps, T., Lauriot, B., Caillou, N., & Delignières, D. (2000). The

effects of required amplitude and practice on frequency stability and efficiency in a

cyclical task. Journal of Sports Science, 18, 201-212.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication.

University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, USA.

Temprado, J., Della Grasta, M., Farrell, M., & Laurent, M. (1997). A novice-expert

comparison of (intra-limb) coordination subserving the volleyball serve. Human

Movement Science, 16, 653-676.


22

Vereijken, B., Van Emmerick, R.E.A., Whiting, H.T.A., & Newell, K.M. (1992).

Freezing degrees of freedom in skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 133-

142.

Whitaker, D. (1992). The hockey workshop, a complete game guide. The Crowood

Press. Marlborough (England).


23

Tables legends

Table 1. Means and SD of the relative durations of the three phases with the short grip and

classic drives.

Table 2. Means and SD of the right and left proximo-distal RP for the two conditions of drive

(short grip and classic)

Table 3. Means and SD of the medio-lateral RP for the two conditions of drive (short grip and

classic)


24

Table 1

Phase Relative duration

(in percentage of cycle) of

short grip drive

Relative duration

(in percentage of cycle) of

classic drive

Backswing

Downswing

Finish

36.1±9.4

28.2±6.2

35.6±7.8

37.9±8.7 a

28.5±6

33.6±6.5 a

a: significant difference between drive types (p<0.05).

Table 2

Condition Right PD

(proximo-distal)

RP (°) Left PD

(proximo-distal)

RP (°)

Short grip drive PD1 (croB/croH) 8.4±7.9 PD1 (croB/croH) 8.4±7.9

PD2 (Rwri/croH) 8.1±7.3 PD2 (Lwri/croH) 18.3±8.6

PD3 (Relb/Rwri) 351.9±7.4 a d PD3 (Lelb/Lwri) 33.3±14.1 a d

PD4 (Rsho/Relb) 344.0±16.6 c d PD4 (Lsho/Lelb) 41.8±11.8 c d

PD5 (Rsho/Rwri) 336.0±17.6 b c d PD5 (Lsho/Lwri) 79.0±18.1 a b c d

Classic drive PD1 (croB/croH) 5.3±9.4 PD1 (croB/croH) 5.3±9.4

PD2 (Rwri/croH) 12.3±6.0 PD2 (Lwri/croH) 32.7±31.8

PD3 (Relb/Rwri) 352.3±5.4 a d PD3 (Lelb/Lwri) 36.3±10.2 d

PD4 (Rsho/Relb) 349.8±15.2 c d PD4 (Lsho/Lelb) 42.2±14.2 d

PD5 (Rsho/Rwri) 342.1±16.6 c d PD5 (Lsho/Lwri) 82.5±22.2 a b c d

a: significant difference with previous level of PD, b: significant difference with PD3, c:

significant difference with PD2, d: significant difference with PD1


25

Table 3

Condition L (medio-lateral) RP (°)

Short grip drive L1 (Rwri/Lwri) 8.8±6.0

L2 (Relb/Lelb) 52.6±15.6 a

L3 (Rsho/Lsho) 122.5±32.1 a b

Classic drive L1 (Rwri/Lwri) 18.0±23.2

L2 (Relb/Lelb) 64.1±28.2 a

L3 (Rsho/Lsho) 133.0±35.2 a b

a: significant difference with previous level of L, b: significant difference with L1


26

Figures legends

Figure 1. Schematic description of field hockey drive movement.

Figure 2. Vertical displacement of the stick and right upper limb during the field hockey drive,

showing that the inter-limb coordination is in-phase.

Figure 3. Vertical displacement of the stick and the left upper limb during the field hockey drive.

The time lags between the minimal heights of the joints indicate that the coordination mode is

out-of-phase.

Figure 4. Vertical displacement of the right and left wrists (a), elbows (b), and shoulders (c)

during the field hockey drive.


27

Figure 1.

DOWNSWING

Highest point Impact

End of the drive

Beginning of the drive

BACKSWING FINISH


28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of drive

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

stick head

stick hose

right wrist

right elbow

rightshoulder

Figure 2.

IMPACT

Minimal height


29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of drive

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

stick head

stick hose

left wrist

left elbow

left shoulder

Figure 3.

Minimal height

IMPACT


30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96

% of drive

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

right wrist

left wrist

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of drive

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

right elbow

left elbow

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of drive

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

right shoulder

left shoulder

Figure 4.

Out-of-phase coordinationmode

IMPACT

In-phase inter-limbcoordination

Out-of-phase coordination mode

a

c

IMPACT

IMPACT

Minimal height

Minimal height

Minimal height

b


Documents

UPPER -LIMB KINEMATICS AND COORDINATION OF SHORT GRIP … · 51 Nourrit et al. , 2003; Vereijken et al. , 1992) or performed swings under the parallel 52 bars in gymnastics (Delignières