ECSS Paris 2023: CP-AP05
INTRODUCTION: In psychology, questionnaires are often used to permit valuable insights into an individual’s cognitive functions, however, supplementary objective alternative measures are needed to collect a more diverse range of information about such outcomes. The Vienna Test System (VTS) is one of the most widely used computerized tools for assessing psychology-related constructs in the athletic population. In the present scoping review, we aimed to draw attention to the challenges in the practical application of the VTS for assessing cognitive functions. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ELSEVIER Scopus, and EBSCOhost). Besides the participants’ characteristics and key findings, the highest Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) of each paper in the year of the publication was also considered. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 41 relevant articles, including 2 of our previous papers (Horvath et al 2022, Horvath et al 2023). The total number of participants was 1789 (n = 256 females and n = 1316 males, seven studies did not provide information on gender) with a mean age of 21.2 years (range between 10-64 years). The participants’ field of sport ranged from yoga-practicing older females to professional athletes (e.g., racing drivers, soccer players, wrestlers and taekwondo competitors, Polish amateur boxers, and rhythmic gymnasts). Of the 41 articles, 10 were published in Q1 journals, 7 in Q2, 6 in Q3, and 2 in Q4. Notably, 16 (39% of the studies) were published in journals that do not appear in SJR. CONCLUSION: The wide spectrum of cognitive tests of the VTS has the potential to assess e.g., sustained attention, reaction time, peripheral perception, stress reactivity, or time movement anticipation. However, the relatively poor experimental designs of many studies using VTS make it difficult to draw clear conclusions about its validity and feasibility.
Read CV János NégyesiECSS Paris 2023: CP-AP05
INTRODUCTION: Heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV) are widely used in sport to assess training intensity, autonomic adaptation, and recovery [1]. Chest strap heart rate (HR) monitors are currently the most used sensors for HR measurements due to their high accuracy and comfort when compared to other sensors. However, differences in signal processing, electrode quality, and transmission protocols can affect measurement agreement between different brands. The Polar H10 is one of the most validated HR monitors, known for its high precision and reliability which is comparable to gold-standard ECGs [2]. Recently, the Coospo H808S chest strap has emerged as a low-cost alternative, but its accuracy and consistency remain unexplored. Therefore, this study aims to compare the agreement of the Coospo chest strap HR monitor with the Polar H10 during different conditions. METHODS: Sixteen recreational runners (25±5 years) participated in this study. Participants simultaneously wore Polar H10 and Coospo H808S chest straps, with strap placement (upper or lower positions) randomized. HR and HRV data were recorded via a smartphone app (HRV Logger) in three conditions: supine, seated, and running at RPE 2-3 out of 10. Each condition lasted 5 min, and the last 4 min of recordings were analyzed using Kubios HRV in two ways: raw data and medium-filtered data. Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: In the supine position, Coospo and Polar showed excellent agreement for RR, RMSSD, and HR (>0.967) before filtering. After filtering, there was a slight reduction in agreement for RR (0.917), RMSSD (0.930), and HR (0.911). When seated, the devices maintained a high agreement, with RR, RMSSD, and HR presenting > 0.990 before filtering. Post-filtering, HR, RR, and RMSSD (>0.990) remained highly correlated. During running, RR showed a correlation of 0.930, and HR maintained an excellent correlation (0.944) before filtering; however, RMSSD demonstrated a poor ICC (-0.244; +17.6 ms; LoA = -73.8 – 109.0). After filtering, RR (0.917) and HR (0.909) remained similar but correlation dropped to 0.132 for RMSSD (-5.1 ms; LoA = -40.4 – 30.1). CONCLUSION: The Coospo H808S showed excellent agreement with the Polar H10 for HR and HRV measures in resting conditions, and excellent agreement for HR during low-intensity running. However, agreement for HRV measures decreased in running condition, especially for vagal modulations. Unexpectedly, filtering reduced agreement between devices, therefore suggesting that these monitors may have some differences in internal signal processing methods. REFERENCES [1] Plews et al., Sports Med, 2013; [2] Schaffarczyk et al., Sensors, 2022.
Read CV Gabriel ProtzenECSS Paris 2023: CP-AP05
INTRODUCTION: Combat sports (Boxing, MMA, Wrestling) often have a high aerobic demand with high heart rates between rounds [1], and elevated blood lactate concentrations [2]. Applied research and athlete monitoring in combat sports face significant barriers due to restrictions imposed both by the nature of the sport and its governing regulations. Since combat sports involve intense physical contact—such as grappling, striking, and punching—most heart rate monitors cannot be worn safely during training and/or competition. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the agreement of an oral wearable sensor (ORB Sport smart mouthguard, OS), against previously validated heart rate monitors and an electrocardiogram (ECG) [3]. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers (11 male, 9 female; age (mean±SD) 28.2±4.2 years) completed the protocol while wearing the OS (ORB Innovations, UK), Polar H10 heart rate monitor (Polar Electro, Finland) and Movesense MD ECG sensor (Movesense Ltd, Finland). The protocol consisted of 5 minutes of seated rest, incremental walking and running (from 4 km/h, increasing 1 km/h every 1 min) on a treadmill (Precor, UK) up to a mean (±SD) heart rate of 170 ± 7 beat/min, followed by 5 minutes of seated recovery. The OS, Polar H10, and Movesense MD data were processed using manufacturer applications and Kubios HRV Scientific (KHS) software (Kubios OY, Finland). Heart rate algorithms for Polar, Sunnto, and KHS provided a total of three criterion heart rate measurements. Following inspection of each participant’s data, three were excluded from the final analysis – two for errors in the heart rate monitor or ECG data and one for errors in the mouthguard data. Heart rate data were averaged (5 second intervals) and temporally aligned for statistical analysis. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement [4] were calculated. RESULTS: The oral wearable sensor had MAPE (mean±SD) of 4.7±5.2%, 5.5±5.3% and 5.5±5.5%; ICC of 0.96, 0.95 and 0.96; Bias with Upper and Lower Limits of Agreement of 1.1[16.4, -14.2], 1.4[17.5, -14.7] and 1.0[17.5, -15.5] beat/min compared to Polar, Suunto, and KHS, respectively. For comparison, MAPE between criterion heart rate monitors and ECG were 2.7±2.8% and 2.5±2.8% for Polar versus Suunto and KHS, respectively, and 1.9±3% for Suunto versus KHS. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the oral wearable sensor has levels of agreement comparable with other wearable devices [5] and can provide a useful estimate of heart rate to determine the intensity of training and competition in combat sports. [1] Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, 4(1), 40–43 [2] Journal of Sport Sciences, 628: 38(24), 2819–2841 [3] Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 119, 1525–1532 [4] Lancet, 1(8476), 307-10 [5] Journal of Sports Sciences, 38:17, 2021-2034
Read CV Daniel SilvaECSS Paris 2023: CP-AP05