Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences
2009, 3(4): 157-164, www.sjss-sportsacademy.edu.rs
UDC 796.217.012.35
796.41.012.35
ISSN 1820-6301
ID 171116044
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
Original article
Received: 19 May 2009
Accepted: 26 Sept 2009
THE EFFECT OF MOVEMENT RHYTHM ON PERFORMANCE IN
SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING AND GYMNASTICS
Liletta Chairopoulou
Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Athens, GREECE.
Abstract Performance efficiency for repetitive arm movements in synchronized swimming and
gymnastics on apparatus was measured to find if there was a relationship between the two similar
sports in terms of personal rhythm. Ten gymnasts and ten synchronized swimmers aged 10.6 and
10.9 years were tested in three different rhythms (slow, personal and fast) while holding a lever
arm. The movement was flexion-extension in the vertical plane. The mean personal rhythms were
not statistically different between the two groups of athletes (2-tailed t test). The work produced was
measured to test the effect of rhythm on efficiency. The overall Multivariate test (2-way repeated
measures ANOVA) was found to be statistically significant. The greatest efficiency was achieved
during the slow rhythm, with ~68% of the max work produced. It is suggested that slow rhythms are
more efficient for performance and learning in young athletes. With such athletes, rhythm plays a
very important role in the performance of a simple motor task of flexion-extension of the arm. Work
produced is directly related to the movement rhythm, and performance is increased when
movement rhythm is slow and suited to the general motor framework of the child.
Key words: Motor skill, rhythm, gymnasts, synchronized swimmers
INTRODUCTION
Previous research shows an important relationship [28] between personal rhythm and efficiency of
movement in simple repetitive movements of the upper arm [1, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27] and in energy
expenditure in walking [4, 11]. Additionally, evidence on the control of movement suggests that movement
organization follows the pattern of a pendulum when one arm is synchronized with the other in one or more
people [2, 3, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 31, 32]. In synchronized swimming, it is very important to identify
the criteria that affect the accuracy and synchronization for the solo, duet and team events.
Specifically in swimming, performance varies in pacing between preliminaries and finals and
sometimes coaches might advise either a positive or an even pace race strategy during the finals [30].
Pacing is a very important factor in competitive swimming and synchronized swimming performance.
Recently, Thompson et al [29], observed that in breaststroke swimming an individually chosen stroke
rate length was adopted in order to achieve a particular swimming speed. No significant differences
were found between the three rhythms (personal, slow and fast) for male and female swimmers and
non swimmers. In contrast to previous research, it was observed that slow movements were more
efficient than fast or preferred ones. A statistically significant difference was found in sex, where male
athletes were more efficient than female athletes in slow rhythms [23].
The relationship between gymnastics on apparatus and synchronized swimming has been
found to be very important in previous research. The two sports share related coaching procedures,
figures and flexibility [9]. Additionally, it is very important to find the relationship between gymnastics
on apparatus and synchronized swimming, when one arm moves while holding the lever arm, for
157
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
children 10 to 12 years old, since it is at this young age that most of the selection and sport
specialization is done.
Performance efficiency is the ratio of energy expended during a movement to the work
produced. Additionally, personal rate (or pace) of a subject is the most comfortable rate of moving the
limb for long periods of time.
The purpose of this study was to compare performance efficiency between athletes in
synchronized swimming and gymnastics on apparatus in an attempt at better evaluation of the
efficiency of performing a single motor action of the upper arm. The extent to which an individually
chosen tempo affects motor performance was investigated in a simple arm flexion-extension action in
the vertical plane. The selection process in synchronized swimming includes a great number of
gymnasts. It is therefore necessary to derive the criteria based on the personal rate of moving the limb
that is common to both sports.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SAMPLES
Twenty athletes (10 gymnasts and 10 synchronized swimmers) with the mean age of 10.6 and 10.9
years were included in the study. The athletes had been competitive for three or more years. They
belonged to Greek competitive clubs for gymnastics or synchronized swimming respectively and took
part in high level national championships and international competitions. The subjects were volunteers
and their parents have signed a consent form for participation to this study (Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of physical characteristics of subjects
Variable
Age
Weight(Kg)
Height(cm)
Mean
10.9
32.5
141.4
SD
0.5
3.7
7.4
Range
10.0-12.0
25.0-40.0
133.0-153.0
PROCEDURE AND MEASUREMENTS
Each athlete was individually tested in the Laboratory for Swimming in the Department of Physical
Education of the University of Athens. Upon arriving to the lab, athletes received instructions and were
given the chance to practice with the lever arm. The task was to wait for the signal “go” while listening
0
to a metronome; then they moved the lever arm through a 65 flexion in the reverse direction, followed
0
by a 65 extension to the starting position in the required movement time. The metronome was set to
emit audio sounds at a rate correspondent to the subject's personal movement time, 20% faster and
20% slower rates. The subject was asked to concentrate on the metronome and begin the task as
soon as the signal was given. It was emphasized that this was not a reaction time task and that the
signal “go” only indicated that the computer was ready to accept another trial. A 30 sec rest interval
was given after every fifth trial to eliminate local fatigue.
APPARATUS
The lever arm was designed and manufactured in collaboration with National Technical University of
Athens. This apparatus was made from a vertically placed aluminium lever 57 cm in length and 5 cm
in width, mounted on a table. The lever was fitted with a D-shaped handle so that it was easy to grasp
with the palm. The lever was equipped with an electronic dynamometer to record forces exerted by the
arm during the motion. Additionally, a potentiometer was secured to the bottom of the axle in order to
record displacement data [12, 14, 16, 17]. The lever was serially interfaced with a PC type computer
system for data collection. Figure 1 shows the position of the subject while holding the lever arm. The
movement was a 130 degree flexion-extension in the vertical plane with shoulder rotation. G trial
consisted of six repetitions in the vertical plane; six trials from each movement time (personal, fast,
slow) were performed with a total of 36 repetitions per movement time. In the first part of the study, the
subject's personal rhythm was recorded using the procedure described by Smoll & Schultz [28].
Personal rhythm was defined as the most convenient and efficient speed that the movement could be
performed by the subject. Personal rhythm was defined [28] as the mean of 25 repetitions of a flexion158
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
extension movement without an auditory cue. In the second part of the study, the subject had to
practice at three movement speeds, personal, 20% faster than personal, and 20% slower than the
personal. The movement speeds were randomly assigned to each subject. Each movement trial was
performed in time to an auditory metronome. Feedback in terms of movement efficiency was given
after each trial as:
Movement efficiency = mechanical work/muscular torque
Mechanical work = LFds+ LNdO
Where: T = Torque, O = Angular acceleration, ds = distance, dO = Angular distance, F = Force [13], MT = Movement time
The subject had to synchronize the movement with the auditory cue at the beginning and the end of
movement. A total of 36 movements were performed for each movement speed.
Figure 1. The subject and the experimental equipment
MOTION ANALYSIS
The data were entered into the computer through a straight connection. Lab View data software was
used to calibrate and filter the data. This data processing software was specially designed for this
experiment by Nelematic PQP Company. The energy expended while doing the movement was
computed by the program. The work produced by the subject is defined as the integral of the
force/time curve.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The independent variables of this experiment were the type of sport (gymnastics or synchronized
swimming) and the rhythm (fast, personal or slow).The dependent variable was the work produced
during the movement. G 2 x 3 ANOVA with repeated measures was used to statistically analyze the
data. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between the three rhythms were performed using Tukey and
Bonferroni techniques. For testing the effect of rhythm on the work produced, an ANOVA design with
repeated measures was performed using the EXCEL Statistical package.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of physical characteristics of the subjects. The first step was to
compare and contrast the personal rhythms used by the two groups of athletes. The mean personal
rhythm for gymnastics was found to be 47.25±6.62 sec, where for synchronized swimmers it was
49.30±12.38 sec. G 2-tailed t test showed no statistical differences between the two groups
159
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
(gymnasts: 47.3±6.6, synchronized swimmers: 49.3±12.4; t = 0.462, p = 0.650). Table 2 shows the
data of the personal rhythms for the 20 subjects used in this experiment.
Table 2. Personal rhythms for the 20 Gymnasts and Synchronized swimmers (in sec)
Subjects
Gymnasts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MEAN
SD
40.00
46.16
40.00
40.54
53.58
54.55
44.65
59.20
46.52
47.25
47.25
6.62
Synchronized
swimmers
51.29
50.42
41.96
65.22
49.59
40.00
75.00
34.49
40.54
44.45
49.30
12.38
The Overall Multivariate test was found to be statistically significant for the three rhythms (slow,
personal, fast) F(3,36)=97.47; p<0.001. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the work produced and
the rhythm, expressed as average values for the whole sample. Post-hoc tests (Tables 3 & 4) found
statistically significant differences between slow versus personal and between slow versus fast
rhythms. There were no statistically significant differences between personal and fast rhythms.
The greatest efficiency in the work produced was noticed during the slow rhythm at
approximately 68% of the max work produced. No statistical differences were found between
repetitions and rhythm (Figure 5). It can be seen in Figure 5 that there was no effect on learning
through the whole practice. Figure 6 shows the relationship between rhythm and the work produced
over trials. It can be seen that there was a learning effect after the first trial because the task was very
easy to learn.
Work & Rhythm Relationship
80
Work (Jouls)
70
60
50
40
30
Personal
Slow
Fast
55.02
69.1
48.9
Rhythm (sec)
Figure 2. Relationship between Work & Rhythm
160
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
Table 3. Post-hoc Tukey test between rhythms (preferred=personal)
(I)Variable
personal
slow
fast
Multiple Comparisons; Measure: work; Tukey HSD
Mean
Std.
95% Conf. Int.
(J)Variable
Sig.
Difference (I-J)
Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
slow
-13.79*
3.55
0.001
-22.34
-5.24
fast
5.72
3.55
0.249
-2.82
14.27
personal
13.79*
3.55
0.001
5.24
22.34
fast
19.51*
3.55
0.000
10.96
28.06
personal
-5.72
3.55
0.249
-14.27
2.82
slow
-19.51*
3.55
0.000
-28.06
-10.96
Based on observed means
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 4. Post-Bonferroni technique between rhythms (preferred=personal)
(I)Variable
personal
slow
fast
(J)Variable
slow
fast
personal
fast
personal
slow
Pairwise Comparisons. Measure: work
Mean
Std.
95% Conf. Int.
Sig.
Difference (I-J)
Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-13.79*
3.55
0.001
-22.55
-5.03
5.72
3.55
0.338
-3.04
14.48
13.79*
3.55
0.001
5.03
22.55
19.51*
3.55
0.000
10.75
28.27
-5.72
3.55
0.338
-14.48
3.04
-19.51*
3.55
0.000
-28.27
-10.75
Based on estimated marginal means
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
80.00
75.00
Work (Joule)
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
40.00
Trial_1
Trial_2
Trial_3
Trial_4
Trial_5
Trial_6
Personal
59.76
54.01
53.32
54.23
55.15
53.98
Slow
57.35
70.66
74.27
70.47
74.70
65.75
Fast
49.66
48.68
50.59
49.47
49.39
48.35
Trials (sec)
Figure 5. Relationship between Repetitions & Rhythm
161
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
80.00
Work (Joule)
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
Personal (s)
Slow (s)
Fast (s)
Trial_1
59.76
57.35
49.66
Trial_2
54.01
70.66
48.68
Trial_3
53.32
74.27
50.59
Trial_4
54.23
70.47
49.47
Trial_5
55.15
74.70
49.39
Trial_6
53.98
65.75
48.35
Rhythm (Type)
Figure 6. Relationship between Work Produced & Rhythm overall trials
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study confirms previous results of experimental work done with young athletes aged 10 to 12
years for synchronized swimming and gymnastics on apparatus [9]. The gymnasts and synchronized
swimmers used the same type of rhythm during the simple movement of the arm. The mean speed of
movement was between 34 and 75 movements per second. This result confirms previous data used in
other experiments with adult athletes [5, 6, 7, 8, 9], where again no statistical difference was found
between synchronized swimmers and gymnasts. Personal rhythm plays a very important role in
synchronized swimming. For training purposes the coach should consider using the athletes' personal
rhythm more often and introducing individuality to the training. Additionally, the fact that no statistical
differences were found between synchronized swimmers and gymnasts in their personally chosen
rhythm might suggest that there were similarities between the two sports based on speed of
movement for young athletes.
Probably the types of movements and specific rhythmic training could be shared by the coaches
alternatively between the two sports to encourage variability in practice.
Greater performance efficiency was observed under the slow rhythm than under the fast or the
personal one (Figure 6). Previous work along this line suggests certain rhythmical frequencies under
which the work produced is maximized [1, 5, 11, 24, 27]. Specifically, we observed that performance
was maximized under the slow condition for all trials except the first, where the subjects were more
efficient under the personal rhythm. Probably the subjects found the task easier under the personal
rhythm at the beginning but during later practice they adjusted to the slow tempo for greater efficiency.
It is possible that at the beginning stages of learning, the athlete depends mostly on his/her individual
rhythm and cannot follow the auditory cue from the metronome very well. Later in practice though, the
athlete can overcome the personal tendencies and learn to listen to the external feedback cues. The
homogeneity between the personal rhythms used in the two sports allows us to conclude that when
designing the training programs we can use common techniques for both sports and that it is more
effective to use slow rhythms for young athletes in their training choreography.
Additionally, this study found statistical differences with regard to the rhythms used by young
athletes. Specifically, it was found that young athletes preferred slow rhythms for learning and
performance. Under slow rhythms the work produced was maximized. This is in contrast with previous
research on the effect of individually chosen tempo to performance efficiency. In previous studies it
was found that performance efficiency was maximized under a personally chosen rhythm [1, 24, 28].
In a study by Salvendy [26], it was found that at least for young adults that move the arm in an
162
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
ergometer, personal rhythm increased efficiency more than rhythm under an externally produced
auditory cue. Probably when movement is performed under personal rhythm, its basic characteristics
such as speed, spatiotemporal accuracy, or effort are better organized than when produced under
rhythms beyond a preferred frequency.
In conclusion, the mean personal rhythms between the two groups of athletes were not
statistically different. The greatest work efficiency was produced during the slow rhythm with ~68% of
the max work produced. The work produced was directly related to the movement rhythm and
performance increased when the movement rhythm was slow and suited to the general motor
framework of the child. It is suggested that for young athletes slow rhythms are more efficient for
performance and learning. For young athletes, rhythm plays a very important role in the performance
of simple motor tasks of flexion-extension of the arm.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
•
•
Coaches should prefer slow rhythms for learning and training choreographies in young athletes
because it is suggested that rhythm plays a very important role in the learning and performance of
a simple motor task at young age.
The work produced is directly related to the rhythm of movement and learning is increased when
movements are learned slowly and in accordance with the general motor behavior framework of
the child.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the University of Athens for financial support. We would like to thank Dr.G.Bogdanis for his technical
assistance in developing this study. Particularly, we would also like to thank Miss Eleni Kougia, a graduate student of mine, for
her assistance in the writing of this study.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Astrand, Q., & Rodahl, Y. (1977). 3 textbook of work physiology. New York: Mc Graw [ill.
Barnes, R. M., & Mundel, \. P. (1938). Studies of hand motions and rhythms as appearing in factory work.
University of Iowa, Studies Bulletin #12, part III.
Basmajian, J. V. (1977). Motor learning and control: G working hypothesis. Arch Phys Med Rehab., 58: 38-40.
Beckett, R., & Chang, Y. (1968). An evaluation of the kinematics of gait by minimum energy. J Biomech., 1: 147-159.
Chairopoulou, L. C. (1986a). Error bandwidth in the control of simple motor tasks. Proceedings of I::: International
conference on system, man and cybernetics, USA: Atlanta.
Chairopoulou, L. C. (1986b). Efficiency and personal rhythm in the performance of simple motor tasks. Proceedings
of the Human Factors Society, USA: Dayton Ohio.
Chairopoulou, L. C. (1986c). Effectiveness and preferred rhythm in the production and control of upper limb
movements. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, USA: University of Maryland.
Chairopoulou, L. C. (1987). G kinetic model of mechanical efficiency. Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium of Biomechanics in Sports, Greece: Athens.
Chairopoulou, L. C., & Parthimos Q. (1999). The relationship between rhythm and efficiency in simple vertical
movements of a lever arm in athletes of gymnastics and synchronized swimming. Sports and Exercise Science,
Theory and Practice, 14: 55-62.
Corlett, P. ^. & Mahadeva, Y. (1970). G relationship between a freely chosen work pace and energy consumption
cur_es. Ergonomics, 13: 517- 524.
Cotes, P. ^., & Meade, F. (1960). The energy expenditure and mechanical efficiency demand in walking.
Ergonomics, 3: 97-119.
Dempster, W. T. (1955). Space requirements of the seated operator. Ohio: Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
(WADC TR 55-159).
Draper, J. E., & Klingman, J. S. (1967). Mathematical analysis: Business and economic applications. Herper & Row
Publishers Inc.
Fitts, Q. \. (1954). The information capacity of the motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp
Psychol., 47: 381-391 .
Hobart, D. J., & Vorro, J. R. (1974). Electromyographic analysis of intermittent modifications during the acquisition
of a novel throwing task. In Nelson, R. C. & Morehouse, C. M. (Eds). Biomechanics IV (p. 553-558). Baltimore,
Maryland: University Book Press.
Kamon, P., & Gormley, J. (1968). Muscular activity pattern for skilled performance and during learning of a
horizontal bar exercise. Ergonomics, 11: 345-357.
Landa, J. (1979). Analysis of skill acquisition `n a novel throwing task in terms of biomechanical factors. J Hum Mov
Studies., 5: 52-60.
163
Chairopoulou.: Movement rhythm in synchronized swimming and gymnastics
Serb J Sports Sci 3(4): 157-164
18. Lin, D. C. (1980). Optimal movement patterns of the lower extremity in running. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Champaing: University of Illinois at Urbana.
19. Lloyd, a. a., & Zacks, R. M. (1972). The mechanical efficiency of treadmill running against a horizontal impeding
force. J Physiol-London., 223: 355-363.
20. McGrain, Q. (1980). Trends in selected kinematics and myoelectric variables associated with learning a novel motor
task. Res Quart., 51: 509-520.
21. ^ewell, Y. \., Carlton, L. G., Carlton, M. J., & Halbert, J. A. (1980). Velocity as a factor in movement timing
accuracy. J Motor Behav., 12: 47-56.
22. Newell, Y. \., & Corcos, D. M. (1993). Variability and motor control. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics Publishers.
23. NikoIopoulos, G., & Chairopoulou, C. (2002). Mechanical efficiency and personal rhythm in swimming. Physical
Education-Athletics-Health. 14-15: 137-146.
24. ReigeI, P. S. (1981). Athletic records and human endurance. Am Sci., 69: 285-290.
25. Sabayoshi, N., Gliner, J. A., Hor_ath, S. M., & Nakamura, P. (1981). Preferred tempo, work intensity and
mechanical efficiency. Percept Motor Skill., 52: 443- 451.
26. Sal_endy, G. (1974). Physiological and psychological aspects of paced performance. Acta physiologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae, 42: 267- 275.
27. Smoll, F. L. (1975). Preferred tempo in performance of repetitive movements. Percept Motor Skill., 40: 439-442.
28. Smoll, F. L., & Schultz, R. W. (1982). Relationships among measures of preferred tempo and motor rhythm.
Percept Motor Skill., 46: 883-894.
29. Thompson, K.G., Haljand, R., & McLaren, D. (2000). An analysis of selected kinematic variables in national and
elite male and female 100-m and 200-m breaststroke swimmers. J Sports Sci., 18: 421-431.
30. Thompson, K. G., McLaren, D. P. M., Lees, A., & Atkinson, G. (2004). The effects of changing pace on metabolism
and stroke characteristics during high-speed breaststroke swimming. J Sports Sci., 22: 149-157.
31. Turvey, \. N. (1990). Coordination. Am Psychol., 45: 938-953.
32. Turvey, M. T., Holl, K. G., La Fiandra, M. E., & Fonseca, S. T. (1999). Can the transitions to and from running and
the metabolic cost of running be determined from the kinetic energy of running? J Motor Behav., 31: 265-278.
Address for correspondence:
Associate Professor Liletta Chairopoulou, Ph.D.
41 Ethnikis Antistasis Str.
Dafne, 172 37, GREECE.
Phone: +30210 7276067
E-mail: [email protected]
164