BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Research Article
!
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
1 of 8
Symmetric analysis in a wheelchair basketball player during an incremental intermittent
test: a case study
KARLA DE JESUS
1
| LUCAS S. NASCIMENTO
1
| KELLY DE JESUS
1
1
Human Performance Studies Laboratory, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil
Correspondence to:!Karla de Jesus.
3000 Gal. Rodrigo Octávio Jordão Ramos Ave., South, MiniCampus, Coroado I, 69077-000, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
+55923305-4090
email: karladejesus@ufam.edu.br
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
HIGHLIGHTS
• Wheelchair propelling is often assumed as symmetric.
• The cycle time of the right and left segments were
similar throughout the increments.
• The participant had a constant propulsive frequency
along with the test.
ABBREVIATIONS
WB Wheelchair basketball
PF Propulsion frequency
RP Recovery Phases
CT Cycle time
RCT Right cycle time
LCT Left cycle time
RRPT Right recovery phase time
LRPT Left recovery phase time
%RCT Percentage of right cycle time
%LCT Percentage of left cycle time
IR Interquartile range
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 31 07 2023
Accepted 12 10 2023
Published 27 04 2024
BACKGROUND: Wheelchair basketball (WB) is a sport aimed at people with permanent
disabilities in the lower limbs, with a functional classification system that allows the inclusion of
various levels of injury from 1 to 4.5. Thus, it is natural that there is an increase in the search
for greater sports performance which is related to physiological and kinematic analyses.
AIM: The present study aimed to compare the symmetry of temporal kinematic variables in
the different zones of effort intensity during an incremental intermittent field test.
METHOD: The sample consisted of 1 male player aged (27 years), with spinal cord injury,
with more than 5 years of gaming experience. The player performed the incremental field Yo-
Yo Test - IR1 and the linear kinematics of the propulsive cycle was estimated.
RESULTS: The results indicated that wheelchair propulsion is a symmetrical movement,
although some asymmetries seem to be perceived qualitatively, but without a statistically
significant difference.
CONCLUSION: It was found that despite the injury to the right shoulder, there is symmetry in
terms of wheelchair propulsion.
KEYWORDS: Kinematics | Intermittent incremental test | Basketball | Wheelchair users
INTRODUCTION
Wheelchair basketball (WB) is a sport practiced by people with permanent physical disability in the lower limbs (e.g., spinal
cord injury)
1
. Due to the inequality between the players during the games a subdivision is carried out among the participants, allowing the
inclusion of various levels of disabilities
2
. The functional classification system of each player according to their movements and skills
presents scores ranging from 1.0 to 4.5 as determined by the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation, 20103. These aspects
make the modality one of the most practiced sports among Paralympic athletes
3,4
. The evolution of WB is noticed in biomechanical
research on wheelchair propulsion cycle time and symmetry
4–6
. Functional classes (i.e., 1.0 to 4.5) are associated with biomechanical
changes and adjustments. According to previous studies the lower the class, the greater the kinematic limiting factors (e.g., trunk flexion
for motion control)
7,8
.
Wheelchair propulsion is described as a bilateral, simultaneous and repetitive movement of the upper extremities
9,10
. It is
considered a cyclic movement, which begins with the moment the hand comes into contact with the rim and ends at the immediate
instant before bringing the hand back closer to the rim
5
. Propulsion efficiency is determined by hand coupling at the beginning and end of
the propulsion stage, thrust angle, shoulder position at the beginning and end of movement, and standardization of recovery
11
. Through a
symmetry measurement, it is possible to evaluate the wheelchair player to obtain a better performance regarding the range of motion and
energy savings during the propulsion
12,13
, which are associated with both the player’s technique and efficiency of, considering the
intraindividual variability of propulsive patterns (e.g., semicircular)
5,12
.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
2 of 8
Research Article
The presence of symmetry helps to obtain better performance
14
, on the other hand, asymmetries can be detrimental to
performance or mainly expose athletes to a greater risk of injury
15
. Biomechanical parameters, incidence of injuries, patterns of use
differences between the dominant and non-dominant sides can make it difficult to propel the wheelchair in a straight line, as well as lead
to excessive metabolic and cardiopulmonary demands
14-16
.
Therefore, to perform better during a game, it is necessary to understand the behavior of symmetry or asymmetry in the
movements inherent to the wheelchair basketball game, so that there is an appropriate training prescription according to the level of
amplitude that the wheelchair user presents in the demands offered by the game. From this perspective, the study aimed to compare the
symmetry of kinematic variables in different effort intensity zones during the Yo-Yo intermittent incremental field test, as it is a commonly
used test
17
. A symmetrical profile on both sides during the wheelchair propulsion phases along with the increments was hypothesized.
The findings could help researchers and trainers better understand kinematic adaptations due to individual characteristics and task
constraints during a commonly used training test.
METHODS
Participants
A 27-year-old male, 180 cm of height, 55.79 kg of body mass, 16.20% of body fat and triceps, subscapular, suprailiac,
abdominal skinfold measurements (mm) as 9.4 ± 0.20, 15.8 ± 0.10, 14.5 ± 0.20, 28.4 ± 0.30 and Ʃ = 68.10, and more than five years of
training. Participant was affected with acquired physical disability (i.e., spinal cord injury), with legibility T12 -L1 and Functional
Classification 3.0had. The athlete performed three training sessions during the week lasting three hours each session. The training was
divided into cardiorespiratory (30 min), strength and mobility training (1 h), and technical and tactical training (1h and 30 min). Before the
experiment, the participant provided a written informed consent to participate in this study and a brief interview verified the absence of
injuries and diseases. This study was approved by the institutional review board (opinion number: 2.928.218) according to the Helsinki
Declaration.
The test was carried out in an adjustable basketball wheelchair, with a dry weight of 15kg, height 68cm, seat depth 51cm,
backrest height 27.5cm and width 38cm. The Levorin Way-back wheels had a frontal distance of 38cm, with a diameter of 62cm and
36Lbs/in
2
of working pressure.
Data collection procedures: field tests
The Yo-Yo intermittent test consists of a 10 m displacement between the start, turn and finish line, at a progressively
incremental speed controlled by signals via beep (Yo-Yo Test, Ruval Enterprise
®
). Between each stage of the test, the participant has an
active rest consisting of a 5m run in 10s. The test can be run at two different levels, with different speeds (levels 1 and 2). When the
participant could not reach the starting line in time, or when he reached volitional exhaustion, the distance covered was recorded and
represented the result of the test
18
.
Figure 1. Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (Yo-Yo test).
The test was performed on an indoor court, starting with a brief 10-minute low-intensity warm-up simulating the first 4
displacement sessions of the test, followed by a 15-minute passive rest before the test
19
. The test consisted of a 10 m run with active rest
and a 5 m run in 10s. As described in Table 1, the Yo-Yo Test intermittent recovery test consisted of: (i) Stage 1 - at a speed of 10 km.h
-1
with a displacement (round trip) of 10 m each, totaling 20 m traveled; (ii) Stage 2 - at the speed of 12 km.h
-1
with a displacement (round
trip) of 10 m each, totaling 20 m traveled; (iii) Stage 3 - at the speed of 13 km.h
-1
with two displacements (round trip) of 10 m each,
totaling 40 m traveled, so successively until the evaluated reach exhaustion.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
3 of 8
Research Article
Table 1. Yo-Yo incremental intermittent test protocol - IR1.
Stage
Speed km.h
-1
Displacement (2 x 10m)
Divided distance (m)
Accumulated distance (m)
1
10
1
20
20
2
12
1
20
40
3
13
2
40
80
4
13.5
3
60
140
5
14
4
80
220
6
14.5
8
160
380
7
15
8
160
540
8
15.5
8
160
700
9
16
8
160
860
10
16.5
8
160
1020
11
17
8
160
1180
12
17.5
8
160
1340
13
18
8
160
1500
14
18.5
8
160
1660
15
19
8
160
1820
Kinematic analysis
The analysis was made at each final stage of the test until the volitional exhaustion of the wheelchair user, preceded by a
three-dimensional inertial central marker (Functional Assessment of Biomechanics System – FAB, Biosyn Systems INC., Canada). It
consists of a number of electronic sensors and a data collection unit Handheld or Desk Top Receiver to be located near the evaluation
point. For each segment of the body there is a specific electronic sensor (figure 2), identified with the name of the region (segment) to be
placed, in this way, the electronic sensors were placed in the segments of the wheelchair user as follows
20
:
• Head sensor: Occipital;
• Trunk sensor: Thoracic between T10 and T11;
• Sense of the pelvis: Lumbar L5 and Sacrum S1;
• Right and left arm sensor: Lateral part of the biceps above the elbow;
• Right and left forearm sensor: Dorsal side of the wrist just above the styloid of the ulna.
To demarcate the increase in speed there was a light-emitting diode that was activated every one minute, which was
synchronized with an increase in speed according to the FAB's own video recording (100 Hz). Spatio-temporal variables were measured
throughout the incremental test, such as:
• Propulsion frequency (PF): number of propulsion cycles (starts at the instant the hand comes into contact with the rim and
ends at the instant before the next contact of the hand with the rim) per unit time;
• Time between Recovery Phases (RPT): interval time between non-propulsive moments.
• Cycle time (CT): propulsion frequency time adding the recovery phase;
• Normalized time per phase of the cycle: phase times as a percentage of the total time.
Statistical analysis
For cinematographic data, descriptive statistics were performed with expressions in mean, standard deviation, median and
interquartile range between the right and left side. All statistical analyzes will be performed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences – SPSS (SPSS version 22, IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York).
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
4 of 8
Research Article
Figure 2. Positioning of central inertia sensors.
RESULTS
Temporal parameters
The number of cycles per stage (cycle number), propulsive frequency (PF), mean and standard deviation of the left and right
limbs of the following variables: right and left cycle time (RCT/ LCT), right and left recovery phase time (RRPT/LRPT) and percentage of
right and left cycle time (%RCT/ %LCT) were reported in Table 2. The participant had a constant propulsive frequency during the test.
The time between the recovery phase was regular, this resulted in a constant and symmetrical cycle time, despite presenting an
inflammation in the right shoulder (bursitis), which could be an influence on the symmetry of the athlete during the propulsion of the
wheelchair.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
5 of 8
Research Article
Table 2. Propulsive frequency (PF), cycle time (CT), time between recovery phases (RT), percentage of cycle time (% CT) from the right (R) and
left (L) upper extremities, Median, Interquartile Range (IR)
Stage
1º Stage
2º Stage
3º Stage
4º Stage
5º Stage
Average
± SD
Median
± IR
Average
± SD
Median
± IR
Average
± SD
Median
± IR
Average
± SD
Median
± IR
Average
± SD
Median
± IR
Nº
Cycle
4
3
4
5
5
PF
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.08
CT
(R)
0.70±0.06
0.70±0.04
0.67±0.06
0.68±0.04
0.64±0.04
0.64±0.02
0.57±0.02
0.57±0.04
0.53±0.02
0.52±0.03
CT
(L)
0.71±0.05
0.64±0.05
0.64±0.03
0.66±0.04
0.66±0.03
0.56±0.02
0.55±0.03
0.52±0.02
RT
(R)
0.59±0.05
0.57±0.04
0.50±0.01
0.50±0.04
0.52±0.01
0.50±0.04
0.38±0.01
0.37±0.03
0.41±0.02
0.40±0.03
RT
(L)
0.58±0.05
0.58±0.03
0.47±0.03
0.46±0.03
0.53±0.05
0.46±0.03
0.40±0.04
0.42±0.03
0.43±0.02
0.45±0.03
%TC
(R)
68.28
--
58.18
--
67.12
72.10
63.32
%TC
(L)
69.57
--
58.18
--
65.39
70.21
62.38
6º Stage
7º Stage
8º Stage
9º Stage
10º Stage
Average ±
SD
Median ±
IR
Average
± SD
Median ±
IR
Average
± SD
Median ±
IR
Average
± SD
Median ±
IR
Average
± SD
Median ±
IR
Nº
Cycle
5
5
5
6
6
PF
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.10
CT
(R)
0.53±0.02
0.51±0.03
0.51±0.03
0.50±0.03
0.51±0.05
0.50±0.03
0.51±0.06
0.51±0.03
0.49±0.05
0.48±0.04
CT
(L)
0.53±0.04
0.52±0.03
0.57±0.07
0.57±0.03
0.50±0.02
0.49±0.03
0.57±0.02
0.58±0.03
0.53±0.05
0.56±0.04
RT
(R)
0.38±0.07
0.37±0.04
0.38±0.03
0.38±0.03
0.31±0.10
0.29±0.03
0.34±0.05
0.34±0.04
0.29±0.10
0.28±0.03
RT
(L)
0.40±0.03
0.41±0.03
0.43±0.03
0.44±0.03
0.35±0.03
0.37±0.03
0.38±0.07
0.39±0.03
0.37±0.03
0.38±0.03
%TC
(R)
73.35
--
74.19
--
59.06
--
61.53
--
54.02
--
%TC
(L)
74.39
--
71.68
--
68.12
--
77.18
--
58.79
--
DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to compare the symmetry of temporal kinematic variables in the different zones of effort intensity
during an incremental intermittent field test. The results indicated that wheelchair propulsion is a symmetrical movement, although some
asymmetries seem to be perceived qualitatively, but without a statistically significant difference, corroborating our hypothesis. Our
findings differ from the results found by Goosey-Tolfrey and Campbell
23
, who found asymmetries in some research participants,
indicating a preference for the right upper limb
17
, who found asymmetries in some research participants. Manual propulsion for
wheelchairs is assumed to be a symmetrical movement, the propulsive instants present an amplitude and a phase so that the
phenomena are symmetrical concomitantly
24,10
. The logicalness for this assumption is that any asymmetry, ordered with the decoupled
nature of the wheels, would hinder a linear propulsion
25
. Corrections resulting from the direction can lead to increased energy cost and
other unfavorable effects (e.g., movement compensation)
10
.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
6 of 8
Research Article
According to Vegter
26
, experienced wheelchair users possibly have symmetrical propulsion mechanics over time and the more
trained the athlete, the greater the symmetry during wheelchair propulsion
17
, In the present study, the athlete had already been practicing
the modality for more than five years. Among the studies that analyzed dissimilarities in the mechanics of propulsion, there was
consensus regarding the presence of symmetry. Some studies showed significant symmetry
17
, as spatio-temporal variables
19
, and
others have significant differences from side to side (i.e., left, right). The results of the present study agree with the literature, obtaining
spatio-temporal values similar to previous research. Studies such as Soltau
11
denote that low levels of symmetry can subsist during
manual wheelchair propulsion and these levels can add in the graded condition when the demand at the upper end is increased. Despite
the fairly uniform changes during wheelchair propulsion, the participant developed kinematic solutions to stay in the test.
The consistent change of the research participant was regarding the range of motion of flexion and elbow extension during the
incremental intermittent test, which is in agreement with the study by Soltau
11
. The para athlete demonstrated discrepancy between the
angle of the right and left elbow during the recovery phase. According to Goosey-Tolfrey and Campbell
23
, a possible explanation for this
was that, although the elbow flexion angles were the same duration, the point at which each upper limb (i.e., right and left) flexed may
have varied, since before the recovery phase, during the propulsive phase, the point at which each hand made initial contact with the
hand rim could have varied. Certainly, this would have an effect on the angle of the elbow, as when the hand follows the rim through the
pressure arc, the elbow extends. Thus, the results agree with the studies presented by Su
26
, where it was addressed that both the right
arm and the left arm have the same power, but some of the arms may present smaller movements due to the force exerted by the
requested limb.
The consistent change of the research participant was regarding the range of motion of flexion and elbow extension during the
incremental intermittent test, which is in agreement with the study by Soltau
10
. The para athlete demonstrated discrepancy between the
angle of the right and left elbow during the recovery phase. According to Goosey-Tolfrey and Campbell
23
, a possible explanation for this
was that, although the elbow flexion angles were the same duration, the point at which each upper limb (i.e., right and left) flexed may
have varied, since before the recovery phase, during the propulsive phase, the point at which each hand made initial contact with the
hand rim could have varied. Certainly, this would have an effect on the angle of the elbow, as when the hand follows the rim through the
pressure arc, the elbow extends. Thus, the results agree with the studies presented by Su
21
, where it was addressed that both the right
arm and the left arm have the same power, but some of the arms may present smaller movements due to the force exerted by the
requested limb.
During the incremental test, data from the 1st stage at 10Km/h are close to the Soltau study in the spatio-temporal variables of
the TC at a fast and graduated level, as well as the %TC in stages 2 and 10 (12 km/h and 16.5 km /h) respectively. Hurd et al (2008)
28
studied lateral differences in temporal variables to standard manual propulsion in different environments and showed similar magnitudes
of differences to those in the current study, however. The differences found, although not significant, may have occurred due to the
difference between the dominant and non-dominant side and the exhaustion of the research participant during the intermittent
incremental test. It is noteworthy that the lack of consensus regarding differences in symmetry may be due to differences between
sample sizes and statistical methods.
Forward progression in wheelchair basketball refers to the direct advance of the team towards the opposing basket during
offense. This movement is crucial for creating scoring opportunities and overcoming the opposing defense. It involves efficient wheelchair
propulsion, team coordination and synchronization, strategic use of court space, adaptation to the opposing defense, precise mid-range
and long-range shooting, speed, and agility. Specific training is crucial to develop these fundamental skills.
As recommendation, further analyses should include different functional classification and wheelchair players’ specialties to
identify if asymmetries would be observed due to different intensities of effort in a field training test. Moreover, the inclusion of more
detailed biomechanical analyses would allow coaches and researchers to clear understand how wheelchair players organize their
technique at training different zones to achieve the task goal, improving performance and reducing the risk of injuries.
CONCLUSION
The athlete presented kinematical symmetry regarding wheelchair propelling. It was noted that low levels of symmetry can be
perceived during manual wheelchair propulsion, which can be accentuated when the demand on the upper extremity is increased.
Despite uniform changes during wheelchair propulsion, the participant developed several kinematic solutions to achieve the test goal.
REFERENCES
1. Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Physiological profiles of elite wheelchair basketball players in preparation for the 2000 Paralympic Games. Adapt Phys Act Q.
2005;22(1):57-66. 1. doi: 10.1123/apaq.22.1.57
2. Molik B, Kosmol A, Morgulec-Adamowicz N, et al. Comparison of aerobic performance testing protocols in elite male wheelchair basketball players.
J Hum Kinet. 2017;60(1):243-254. doi: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0140
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
7 of 8
Research Article
3. International Wheelchair Basketball Federation IWBF classification for wheelchair basketball. 2021. (available online at: www.iwbf.org; accessed on
20.04.2023)
4. Francis J, Owen A, Peters DM. A new reliable performance analysis template for quantifying action variables in elite men’s wheelchair basketball.
Front Psychol. 2019;10:16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00016
5. Brown DD, Knowlton RG, Hamill J, Schneider TL, Hetzler RK. Physiological and biomechanical differences between wheelchair-dependent and
able-bodied subjects during wheelchair ergometry. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;60:179-182. doi: 10.1007/BF00839155
6. Chow JW, Levy CE. Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics and wheelers’ quality of life: an exploratory review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol.
2011;6(5):365-377. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2010.525290
7. Symonds A, Barbareschi G, Taylor S, Holloway C. A systematic review: the influence of real time feedback on wheelchair propulsion biomechanics.
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(1):47-53. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2016.1278472
8. Menezes-Reis R, Ribeiro VB, Tourinho Filho H. Respostas fisiológicas ao exercício físico em atletas cadeirantes com lesão medular. Conscientiae
saúde. 2015;14(1):161-168. 1. doi:10.5585/ConsSaude.v14n1.5216
9. Collins EG, Gater D, Kiratli J, Butler J, Hanson K, Langbein WE. Energy cost of physical activities in persons with spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sport
Exerc. 2010;42(4):691-700. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181bb902f
10. Shimada SD, Robertson RN, Bonninger ML, Cooper RA. Kinematic characterization of wheelchair propulsion. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35(2):210-
218.
11. Soltau SL, Slowik JS, Requejo PS, Mulroy SJ, Neptune RR. An Investigation of Bilateral Symmetry During Manual Wheelchair Propulsion. Front
Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015;3:86. Published 2015 Jun 11. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2015.00086
12. Cooper RA, De Luigi AJ. Adaptive sports technology and biomechanics: wheelchairs. Pm&r. 2014;6(8):S31-S39. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.020
13. Cooper RA, DiGiovine CP, Boninger ML, Shimada SD, Koontz AM, Baldwin MA. Filter frequency selection for manual wheelchair biomechanics. J
Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(3).
14. Bergamini E, Morelli F, Marchetti F, Vannozzi G, Polidori L, Paradisi F, et al. Wheelchair Propulsion Biomechanics in Junior Basketball Players: A
Method for the Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Specific Training Program. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:275965. doi:10.1155/2015/275965
15. Heishman A, Daub B, Miller R, Brown B, Freitas E, Bemben M. Countermovement jump inter-limb asymmetries in collegiate basketball
players. Sports. 2019;7(5):103. doi:10.3390/sports7050103
16. Brassart F, Faupin A, Hays A, Bakatchina S, Alberca I, Watelain E, et al. Upper limb cranking asymmetry during a Wingate anaerobic test in
wheelchair basketball players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023;33(8):1473-1485. doi:10.1111/sms.14376
17. Ferreira da Silva CMA, de Sá KSG, Bauermann A, Borges M, de Castro Amorin M, Rossato M, et al. Wheelchair skill tests in wheelchair Basketball:
A systematic review. PLoS One. 2022;17(12):e0276946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276946
18. Rodgers MM, Keyser RE, Gardner ER, Russell PJ, Gorman PH. Influence of trunk flexion on biomechanics of wheelchair propulsion. J Rehabil Res
Dev. 2000;37(3):283-295.
19. Nunome H, Doyo W, Sakurai S, Ikegmai Y, Yabe K. A kinematic study of the upper-limb motion of wheelchair basketball shooting in tetraplegic
adults. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(1).
20. Yanci J, Granados C, Otero M, et al. Sprint, agility, strength and endurance capacity in wheelchair basketball players. Biol Sport. 2015;32(1):71-78.
doi: 10.5604/20831862.1127285
21. Tachibana K, Mutsuzaki H, Shimizu Y, Doi T, Hotta K, Wadano Y. Influence of functional classification on skill tests in elite female wheelchair
basketball athletes. Medicina (B Aires). 2019;55(11):740. doi: 10.3390/medicina55110740
22. Pérez R, Costa Ú, Torrent M, Solana J, Opisso E, Cáceres C, et al. Upper limb portable motion analysis system based on inertial technology for
neurorehabilitation purposes. Sensors. 2010;10(12):10733-10751. doi: 10.3390/s101210733
23. Goosey VL. Symmetry of the elbow kinematics during racing wheelchair propulsion. Ergonomics. 1998;41(12):1810-1820. doi:
10.1080/001401398185983
24. Hernandez V, Gorce P, Rezzoug N. Evaluation and validation of musculoskeletal force feasible set indices: Application to manual wheelchair
propulsion. J Biomech. 2018;68:70-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.12.012
25. De Groot S, Veeger DH, Hollander AP, Van der Woude LH. Wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency after 3 wk of practice. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(5):756-766. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200205000-00005
26. Vegter RJK, Lamoth CJ, De Groot S, Veeger DHEJ, Van der Woude LH V. Variability in bimanual wheelchair propulsion: consistency of two
instrumented wheels during handrim wheelchair propulsion on a motor driven treadmill. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:1-12. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-
10-9
27. Su FC, Chou YL, Lu JW, Lai KA. Three-dimensional kinematics in wheelchair propulsion. J Biomech. 1992;25(7):732.
28. Hurd WJ, Morrow MM, Kaufman KR, An KN. Biomechanic evaluation of upper-extremity symmetry during manual wheelchair propulsion over varied
terrain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(10):1996-2002. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.03.020
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
de Jesus, Nascimento,
de Jesus
2024
VOL.18
N.1
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
8 of 8
Research Article
Citation: de Jesus K, Nascimento LS, de Jesus K. (2024). Symmetric analysis in a wheelchair basketball player during an incremental intermittent test: a case study.
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 18(1):
Editor-in-chief: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil. !
Associate editors: Dr José Angelo Barela - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; Dr Natalia Madalena Rinaldi - Federal University of Espírito Santo
(UFES), Vitória, ES, Brazil; Dr Renato de Moraes – University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.!
Copyright:© 2024 de Jesus, Nascimento and de Jesus and BJMB. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI:!https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v18i1.383
e383.
