Leg soft tissue position and velocity data from skin markers can be obtained with good to acceptable reliability following heel impacts

Quantifying soft tissue motion following impact is important in human motion analysis as soft tissues attenuate potentially injurious forces resulting from activities such as running and jumping. This study determined the reliability of leg soft tissue position and velocity following heel impacts. A grid of black dots was applied to the skin of the right leg and foot (n = 20). Dots were automatically detected (ProAnalyst^®) from high-speed records of pendulum and drop impacts. Three trained measurers selected columns of dots on each participant for analysis; one measurer 6 months later. Between- and within-measurer differences in kinematic variables were all relatively small (<0.8 cm for position; <3.7 cm/s for velocity) between-measurers and (<0.5 cm for position; <2.6 cm/s for velocity) within-measurer. Good (coefficients of variation (CV) ≤ 10%) to acceptable (CV > 10% and ≤20%) reliability was shown for 95% of the position measures, with mean CVs of 10% and 11% within-measurers and between-measures, respectively. Velocity measures were less reliable; 40% of the measures showed good to marginal (CV > 20% and ≤30%) reliability. This study established that leg soft tissue position data from skin markers could be obtained with good to acceptable reliability following heel impacts. Velocity data were less reliable but still acceptable in many cases.     

Why Right‐Brain Teaching is Half‐Witted: A Critique of the Misapplication of Neuroscience to Education

Educational tools claiming to use “right‐brain techniques” are increasingly shaping school curricula. By implying a strong scientific basis, such approaches appeal to educators who rightly believe that knowledge of the brain should guide curriculum development. However, the notion of hemisphericity (idea that people are “left‐brained” or “right‐brained”) is a neuromyth that was debunked in the scientific literature 25 years ago. This article challenges the validity of “right‐brain” teaching, highlighting the fact that neuroscientific research does not support its claims. Providing teachers with a basic understanding of neuroscience research as part of teacher training would enable more effective evaluation of brain‐based claims and facilitate the adoption of tools validated by rigorous independent research rather than programs based on pseudoscience.