Countermovement Jump and Quantitative Electroencephalography Assessment in Division I Football Athletes: An Exploratory Neurophysiological Study of Return‑to‑Play Readiness.
Robert E Mangine, Bradley T Jacobs, James A Tersak and 9 others
Five medically cleared football athletes with prior lower-leg injuries jumped lower, landed with less force, and showed greater movement asymmetry than five uninjured teammates.
These are descriptive comparisons only. No statistical tests were performed, and the brain-activity measures used a commercial system with no validation.
Key findings
1The injured group had lower RSI-Mod (0.24 vs 0.42), lower jump height (8.4 cm vs 13.2 cm), and lower peak landing force (3332 N vs 3979 N) than the uninjured group. These are descriptive group comparisons; no statistical tests were performed.
2Reaction times were slightly slower in the injured group (~289 ms vs ~265 ms) and reaction-time asymmetry was slightly higher (5.1% vs ≤5%), while Stroop accuracy was similar (~91% vs ~90%).
3The injured group showed higher SMR asymmetry in motor-related cortical regions and greater qualitative movement asymmetry during single-leg tasks, based on exploratory qEEG metrics and video-based observation by athletic trainers.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Ten athletes total, five per group, with five different injury types, making it impossible to tell which injury drove which difference. Cross-sectional, single time point. No follow-up, no reinjury tracking, no before-and-after comparison. No inferential statistics were performed. Every group difference is descriptive and could reflect chance in a sample this small. The qEEG and cognitive-load measures come from a proprietary commercial system (Neuralytica). The authors state these are exploratory, system-generated descriptors that do not constitute validated psychometric measures, and no independent validation or test-retest reliability was examined. The injured group was older on average (22.0 vs 19.2 years), which could contribute to the observed differences. All participants were male, limiting generalisability. The RTP benchmarks used for contextual comparison (≥90% of normative, <5% asymmetry) are heuristic reference values from prior literature, not validated cutoffs. Physiometric data (heart rate, HRV, respiration, EMG, galvanic skin response) were collected but not analysed or reported.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest and no financial or personal relationships that could influence their work. The qEEG system (Neuralytica) and force plates (VALD) are commercial products, but no relationship with either company is disclosed.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the lower jump heights and higher brain-activity asymmetry as proof that these athletes are not ready to play, or that a qEEG scan can detect hidden deficits that strength and hop tests miss. The study ran no statistical tests, used a commercial brain-activity system with no independent validation, and followed up no one for reinjury. With five athletes per group and five different injuries, the differences could easily reflect the individuals rather than a real effect.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →