English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Este estudo teve como objetivo verificar a validade da medida de tempo de vôo e de contato de um tapete de contato, SaltoBras (SB), comparando-o com um osciloscópio (OS) e uma plataforma de forças (PF). Para isso o SB foi colocado sobre uma plataforma de forças. Primeiramente, quatro homens e duas mulheres realizaram quinze saltos sobre o SB e o tempo de vôo foi obtido. Depois, os mesmos realizaram seis saltos consecutivos e os tempos de contato foram obtidos. O SB apresentou-se valido em relação ao OS, mas subestimou o tempo de vôo (~0.30 %) e de contato (~1.01 %) quando comparado a PF. Apesar das diferenças, o erro encontrado entre SB e PF apresentou-se sistemático e duas equações de predição foram definidas e inseridas no software para a correção dos erros. Os resultados sugerem que SB é um instrumento válido para a avaliação do salto vertical. The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of the flight and ground contact time measurement of a contact mat, SaltoBras (SB), comparing it to an oscilloscope (OS) and to a force plate (FP). For that, the SB was placed upon a FP. At first, four male and two female performed 15 jumps on the SB and the flight times were obtained. After, they performed six consecutive jumps and the ground contact times were obtained. SB software was valid in comparison with the OS, but underestimated the flight (~0.30 %) and ground contact (~1.01 %) time measurements when comparing it to the FP. Despite the differences, the error found between SB and FP was systematic, and two prediction equations were defined and added to the software for correction. The results suggest that SB is a valid instrument for the evaluation of vertical jump

Validity of a new contact mat system for evaluating vertical jump.