Figure 1.
Overall view of the tests carried out on the subjects involved in the study.
a) measurement of anthropometric values by means of dedicated tools; b) assessment of maximum vertical jump height; c,d) static and dynamic balance tests by means of a force platform; e) assessment of subject’s rapidity by means of contact time measurements; f) assessment of visual and acoustic reaction times by means of a dedicated software.
Figure 2.
a) ΔL values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. *=p<0.05, **=p<0.01; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 3.
Results of static balance tests, evaluated by means of COP length values, on dominant limb.
a) COP length values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. *=p<0.05, **=p<0.01; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 4.
Results of static balance tests, evaluated by means of COP length values, on non dominant limb.
a) COP length values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. *=p<0.05, **=p<0.01; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 5.
Results of static balance tests, evaluated by means of COP area values, on dominant limb.
a) COP area values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. **=p<0.01; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 6.
Results of static balance tests, evaluated by means of COP area values, on non dominant limb.
a) COP area values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. *=p<0.05; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 7.
Results of dynamic balance tests, evaluated by means of COP length values calculated respectively 3 and 10 s after jump landing, on dominant limb.
a) COP length values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X and for the different time-points. *=p<0.05; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation for the different time-points; c) matrices reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups, for the different time-points; d) multiple comparison plots (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement) for the different time-points.
Figure 8.
Results of dynamic balance tests, evaluated by means of COP length values calculated respectively 3 and 10 s after jump landing, on non dominant limb.
a) COP length values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X and for the different time-points. *=p<0.05, **=p<0.01; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation for the different time-points; c) matrices reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups, for the different time-points; d) multiple comparison plots (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement) for the different time-points.
Figure 9.
Results of the rapidity tests, evaluated by assessment of contact time values.
a) contact time values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X. *=p<0.05; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 10.
Results of the visual reaction times tests.
a) reaction time values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 11.
Results of the acoustic reaction times tests.
a) reaction time values for the different analyzed groups (average value ± standard deviation), from A to X; b) results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s f2) calculation; c) matrix reporting the p values for the coupled t-tests between the different groups; d) multiple comparison plot (average values ± 95% of CI, with Bonferroni adjustement).
Figure 12.
p values distributions for the different tests performed.
100 different p values were calculated for each test, by means of non-parametric ANOVAs, associated with a repeated random sub-sampling-based resampling method. Significance threshold was set at 0.05. Central boxes represent the central 50% of the data; their lower and upper boundary lines are the 25% / 75% quantile of the data. The two “whiskers” extend from the central box maximally to 1.5 times the length of the box. Points that remained out of this range (evidenced with empty circles) were considered as outliers.
Figure 13.
Cohen’s f2 values distributions for the different tests performed.
100 different f2 values were calculated for each test, by applying a repeated random sub-sampling-based resampling method. “Small”, “medium” and “large” thresholds were set at 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, respectively. Central boxes represent the central 50% of the data; their lower and upper boundary lines are the 25% / 75% quantile of the data. The two “whiskers” extend from the central box maximally to 1.5 times the length of the box. Points that remained out of this range (evidenced with empty circles) were considered as outliers.
Figure 14.
Scatter plot of the athletes playing in all the 10 analyzed categories and of control subjects on the principal component parameters plane and identification of four macro-groups for subjects’ clustering. PC1 and PC2 values for the different categories are also reported, by means of box-plots. Central boxes represent the central 50% of the data; their lower and upper boundary lines are the 25% / 75% quantile of the data. The two “whiskers” extend from the central box maximally to 1.5 times the length of the box. Points that remained out of this range were considered as outliers.