How Does Cryotherapy Effect Ankle Proprioception in Healthy Individuals?

Objectives: To investigate how a 15 minute Cryotherapy intervention effects proprioception by measuring Joint positional Sense (JPS) and static single legged balance. Design: Repeated measures design. Setting: Laboratory. Participants: Eighteen healthy university sports team students (11 males, 7 females) aged between 20-21 years. Main Outcome Measures: Participants were treated with 15 minutes Aircast Cryo-cuff. The subject’s skin temperature was measured before and immediately after 15 minutes Cryotherapy treatment. Ankle active joint positional sense (A-JPS) and passive joint positional sense (P-JPS) was measured at pre-test, immediately post-test and 5 minutes post-test. Static balance was measured by Centre of Pressure (CoP) mean path length, medial-lateral (ML) CoP mean Deviation and anterior-posterior (AP) CoP mean Deviation and mean time-to-boundary (TtB) Minima for AP and ML directions. Results: No significant differences found for the variables of JPS and static single balance testing after 15 minutes Cryotherapy treatment. However, mean differences for CoP mean path length and ML mean deviation were shown to improve following Cryotherapy treatment, results not previously found in the literature. Conclusion: Results suggest that 15 minute Cryo-cuff treatment doesn’t significantly affect proprioception. Although the effect of Cryotherapy on proprioception depends on cooling modality used, time frame applied and joint applied to

DCMIP2016: a review of non-hydrostatic dynamical core design and intercomparison of participating models

Atmospheric dynamical cores are a fundamental component of global atmospheric modeling systems and are responsible for capturing the dynamical behavior of the Earth's atmosphere via numerical integration of the Navier-Stokes equations. These systems have existed in one form or another for over half of a century, with the earliest discretizations having now evolved into a complex ecosystem of algorithms and computational strategies. In essence, no two dynamical cores are alike, and their individual successes suggest that no perfect model exists. To better understand modern dynamical cores, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of 11 non-hydrostatic dynamical cores, drawn from modeling centers and groups that participated in the 2016 Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP) workshop and summer school. This review includes a choice of model grid, variable placement, vertical coordinate, prognostic equations, temporal discretization, and the diffusion, stabilization, filters, and fixers employed by each syste

DCMIP2016: the splitting supercell test case

This paper describes the splitting supercell idealized test case used in the 2016 Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP2016). These storms are useful test beds for global atmospheric models because the horizontal scale of convective plumes is O(1&thinsp;km), emphasizing non-hydrostatic dynamics. The test case simulates a supercell on a reduced-radius sphere with nominal resolutions ranging from 4 to 0.5&thinsp;km and is based on the work of Klemp et al. (2015). Models are initialized with an atmospheric environment conducive to supercell formation and forced with a small thermal perturbation. A simplified Kessler microphysics scheme is coupled to the dynamical core to represent moist processes. Reference solutions for DCMIP2016 models are presented. Storm evolution is broadly similar between models, although differences in the final solution exist. These differences are hypothesized to result from different numerical discretizations, physics–dynamics coupling, and numerical diffusion. Intramodel solutions generally converge as models approach 0.5&thinsp;km resolution, although exploratory simulations at 0.25&thinsp;km imply some dynamical cores require more refinement to fully converge. These results can be used as a reference for future dynamical core evaluation, particularly with the development of non-hydrostatic global models intended to be used in convective-permitting regimes.</p

DCMIP2016: the tropical cyclone test case

This paper describes and analyzes the Reed–Jablonowski (RJ) tropical cyclone (TC) test case used in the 2016 Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP2016). This intermediate-complexity test case analyzes the evolution of a weak vortex into a TC in an idealized tropical environment. Reference solutions from nine general circulation models (GCMs) with identical simplified physics parameterization packages that participated in DCMIP2016 are analyzed in this study at 50 km horizontal grid spacing, with five of these models also providing solutions at 25 km grid spacing. Evolution of minimum surface pressure (MSP) and maximum 1 km azimuthally averaged wind speed (MWS), the wind–pressure relationship, radial profiles of wind speed and surface pressure, and wind composites are presented for all participating GCMs at both horizontal grid spacings. While all TCs undergo a similar evolution process, some reach significantly higher intensities than others, ultimately impacting their horizontal and vertical structures. TCs simulated at 25 km grid spacings retain these differences but reach higher intensities and are more compact than their 50 km counterparts. These results indicate that dynamical core choice is an essential factor in GCM development, and future work should be conducted to explore how specific differences within the dynamical core affect TC behavior in GCMs.</p

How Much Do Range of Movement and Coordination Affect Paralympic Sprint Performance?

Introduction: Development of evidence-based methods of paralympic classification requires research quantifying the relative strength of association between ratio-scaled measures of impairment and sports performance. To date, no such research has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent to which range of movement (ROM) and coordination affect running performance in runners with and without brain impairment. Methods: Participants were 41 male runners, 13 with brain impairments (RBI) and 28 nondisabled (NDR). All participants completed a maximal 60-m sprint as well as a novel battery of five lower limb ROM tests and three lower limb coordination tests. Results: In the coordination tests, RBI showed significantly slower mean movement times compared to NDR on all measures (e.g., 0.54 s ± 0.12 s vs 0.34 s ± 0.05 s). Runners with brain impairments had significantly lower range of movement on five of ten measures (e.g., 25.9° ± 5.4° vs 37.0° ± 6.0°) and had significantly slower acceleration (0–15 m) (3.2 s ± 0.3 s vs 2.8 s ± 0.2 s) and top speed (30–60 m) (4.3 s ± 0.6 s vs 3.8 s ± 0.3 s). Five ROM measures significantly correlated with sprint performance in RBI and did not significantly correlate with sprint performance in NDR, satisfying convergent and divergent validity criteria. These individual tests explained 38% to 58% of the variance in sprint performance in RBI. Conclusion: This is the first study to quantify the extent to which eligible impairments affect performance in a paralympic sport. Five of the ROM measures significantly affected sprint performance in RBI and were deemed valid for the purposes of classifying impairments in classes T35–T38. This study is an important methodological step toward development of evidence-based methods of classifying impairments in classes T35–T38 and provides practical methodological guidance to researchers in this field