The effects of action observation in the lower limb landing biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Daniele Conte; Jarno Miani; Chiara Pinzini

doi:10.5114/areh.2023.127924

Figures & Tables

Main phases of a jump-landing task. Example of the ground reaction force components (Image provided by BTS Bioengineering)

Forest plots of the results of random effects meta-analysis on the effects of action observation on: (A) Peak knee flexion; (B) Initial contact knee flexion; (C) Peak hip flexion; (D) Dynamic knee valgus; (E) Vertical ground reaction force

Mean (SD) Landing Error Scoring System Score (LESS) at post-test for each group and mean (95% CI) difference between groups

Study	Groups		Difference between groups

	Action observation	Control	Action observation minus control
Welling et al. (2016)[18]	2.04 (0.67)	3.1 (0.69)	−1.06 (−1.66 to −0.46)
Benjaminse et al. (2017) [19]	4.00 (1.30)	8.1 (0.30)	−4.10 (−5.02 to −3.18)

Characteristics of included studies

Study	Design	Participants	Intervention	Outcome measures
Benjaminse et al. (2017) [19]	RCT	n = 16 Age (yr) = 17.7 (SD 1.1) Gender = 0 M, 16 F	Jump task = Jump shot Both = pre-test, 2 training sessions and post-test. Exp = video feedback of an expert model with an overlay of their own jump shots in training sessions 1 and 2 Con = no video feedback	Peak knee flexion (joint degrees) Initial contact knee flexion (joint degrees) Peak hip flexion (joint degrees) Landing error scoring system (LESS)
Dallinga et al. (2017) [15]	RCT	n = 59 Age (yr) = 23.0 (SD 3.3) Gender = 29 M, 30 F	Jump task = drop vertical jump (DVJ) Both = pre-test, 2 training sessions and a post-test Exp = video feedback of the athlete’s contour superimposed onto an expert’s contour performing the DVJ landing task in training sessions 1 and 2 Con = no video feedback	Peak knee flexion (joint degrees) Peak hip flexion (joint degrees) Dynamic knee valgus (Nm/Kg) Vertical ground reaction force (N/Kg)
Etnoyer et al. (2013) [16]	RCT	n = 43 Age (yr) = 21.5 (SD 1.6) Gender = 0 M, 43 F	Jump task = drop vertical jump (DVJ) Both = pre-test, post-test Exp = video feedback of 2 trials of an expert performing DVJ and video feedback of the first 2 trials of their own performance of the DVJ Con = no video feedback	Peak knee flexion (joint degrees) Peak hip flexion (joint degrees) Initial contact knee flexion (joint degrees) Dynamic knee valgus (joint degrees)
Munro et al. (2014) [17]	RCT	n = 20 Age (yr) = 23.3 (SD 4.2) Gender = 8M, 12 F	Jump task = drop vertical jump (DVJ) Both = pre-test, post-test Exp = video feedback of 2 trials of an expert performing DVJ and video feedback of their own 3 trials Con = no video feedback	Vertical ground reaction force (%BW) Dynamic knee valgus (joint degrees)
Onate et al. (2005) [20]	RCT	n = 51 Age (yr) = 18–25 Gender = 19 M, 32 F	Jump task = maximum vertical jump with Jump-Ball device Both = pre-test, post-test Exp = video feedback of 2 trials of an expert performing the maximum vertical jump and video feedback of their own 3 trials Con = no video feedback	Peak knee flexion (joint degrees) Initial contact knee flexion (joint degrees) Vertical ground reaction force (mobs)
Welling et al. (2016) [18]	RCT	n = 40 Age (yr) = 22.5 (SD 1.6) Gender = 20 M, 20 F	Jump task = drop vertical jump (DVJ) Both = pre-test, post-test Exp = video feedback of a contour of an expert video with a perfect performed DVJ Con = no video feedback	Landing error scoring system (LESS)

The effects of action observation in the lower limb landing biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Mean (SD) Landing Error Scoring System Score (LESS) at post-test for each group and mean (95% CI) difference between groups

Characteristics of included studies

Paradigm

My account