Paralympic wheelchair athletes solely depend on the power of their upper-body for their on- court wheeled mobility as well as for performing sport-specific actions in ball sports, like a basketball shot or a tennis serve. The objective of WheelPower is to improve the power output of athletes in their sport-specific wheelchair to perform better in competition. To achieve this objective the current project systematically combines the three Dutch measurement innovations (WMPM, Esseda wheelchair ergometer, PitchPerfect system) to monitor a large population of athletes from different wheelchair sports resulting in optimal power production by wheelchair athletes during competition. The data will be directly implemented in feedback tools accessible to athletes, trainers and coaches which gives them the unique opportunity to adapt their training and wheelchair settings for optimal performance. Hence, the current consortium facilitates mass and focus by uniting scientists and all major Paralympic wheelchair sports to monitor the power output of many wheelchair athletes under field and lab conditions, which will be assisted by the best data science approach to this challenge.

There are many ways to simulate handrim wheelchair propulsion in the laboratory. Ideally, these would be able to, at least mechanically, simulate field conditions. This narrative review provides an overview of the lab-based equipment used in published research and critically assesses their ability to simulate and measure wheelchair propulsion performance. A close connection to the field can only be achieved if the instrument can adequately simulate frictional losses and inertia of real-life handrim wheelchair propulsion, while maintaining the ergonomic properties of the wheelchair-user interface. Lab-based testing is either performed on a treadmill or a wheelchair ergometer (WCE). For this study WCEs were divided into three categories: roller, flywheel, and integrated ergometers. In general, treadmills are mechanically realistic, but cannot simulate air drag and acceleration tasks cannot be performed; roller ergometers allow the use of the personal wheelchair, but calibration can be troublesome; flywheel ergometers can be built with commercially-available parts, but inertia is fixed and the personal wheelchair cannot be used; integrated ergometers do not employ the personal wheelchair, but are suited for the implementation of different simulation models and detailed measurements. Lab-based equipment is heterogeneous and there appears to be little consensus on how to simulate field conditions.

Current athlete monitoring practice in team sports is mainly based on positional data measured by global positioning or local positioning systems. The disadvantage of these measurement systems is that they do not register lower extremity kinematics, which could be a useful measure for identifying injury-risk factors. Rapid development in sensor technology may overcome the limitations of the current measurement systems. With inertial measurement units (IMUs) securely fixed to body segments, sensor fusion algorithms and a biomechanical model, joint kinematics could be estimated. The main purpose of this article is to demonstrate a sensor setup for estimating hip and knee joint kinematics of team sport athletes in the field. Five male subjects (age 22.5 ± 2.1 years; body mass 77.0 ± 3.8 kg; height 184.3 ± 5.2 cm; training experience 15.3 ± 4.8 years) performed a maximal 30-meter linear sprint. Hip and knee joint angles and angular velocities were obtained by five IMUs placed on the pelvis, both thighs and both shanks. Hip angles ranged from 195° (± 8°) extension to 100.5° (± 8°) flexion and knee angles ranged from 168.6° (± 12°) minimal flexion and 62.8° (± 12°) maximal flexion. Furthermore, hip angular velocity ranged between 802.6 °·s^-1 (± 192 °·s^-1) and-674.9 °·s^-1 (± 130 °·s^-1). Knee angular velocity ranged between 1155.9 °·s^-1 (± 200 °·s^-1) and-1208.2 °·s^-1 (± 264 °·s^-1). The sensor setup has been validated and could provide additional information with regard to athlete monitoring in the field. This may help professionals in a daily sports setting to evaluate their training programs, aiming to reduce injury and optimize performance.

Background: Handrim wheelchair propulsion is often assessed in the laboratory on treadmills (TM) or ergometers (WE), under the assumption that they relate to regular overground (OG) propulsion. However, little is known about the agreement of data obtained from TM, WE, and OG propulsion under standardized conditions. The current study aimed to standardize velocity and power output among these three modalities to consequently compare obtained physiological and biomechanical outcome parameters. Methods: Seventeen able-bodied participants performed two submaximal practice sessions before taking part in a measurement session consisting of 3 × 4 min of submaximal wheelchair propulsion in each of the different modalities. Power output and speed for TM and WE propulsion were matched with OG propulsion, making them (mechanically) as equal as possible. Physiological data and propulsion kinetics were recorded with a spirometer and a 3D measurement wheel, respectively. Results: Agreement among conditions was moderate to good for most outcome variables. However, heart rate was significantly higher in OG propulsion than in the TM condition. Push time and contact angle were smaller and fraction of effective force was higher on the WE when compared to OG/TM propulsion. Participants used a larger cycle time and more negative work per cycle in the OG condition. A continuous analysis using statistical parametric mapping showed a lower torque profile in the start of the push phase for TM propulsion versus OG/WE propulsion. Total force was higher during the start of the push phase for the OG conditions when compared to TM/WE propulsion. Conclusions: Physiological and biomechanical outcomes in general are similar, but possible differences between modalities exist, even after controlling for power output using conventional techniques. Further efforts towards increasing the ecological validity of lab-based equipment is advised and the possible impact of these differences -if at all- in (clinical) practice should be evaluated.