April 2018

Does athletes’ divided attention affect mechanics associated with ACL injury?

We might be falling short in our efforts to prevent ACL injury by allowing athletes to focus on how they are moving during screening.

By Sarah Marie Tighe, SPT, and Thomas Gus Almonroeder, PT, DPT, PhD

Almost 8 million athletes participate in high school sports each year in the United States,1 and an additional 490,000 compete at the intercollegiate level.2 Regrettably, acute lower-extremity musculoskeletal injuries are relatively common in sports that involve frequent high-impact maneuvers, such as landing and cutting (e.g., basketball and soccer).3 Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are of particular concern, because they can be season- or career-ending,4 and can contribute to premature osteoarthritis of the knee.5

Prevention of ACL injury is a priority in sports medicine; evidence suggests that targeted training might reduce the risk of ACL injury in some cases.6 However, epidemiological studies of injury trends indicate that prevention efforts might have had minimal influence on the rate of ACL injury in athletes.7,8

As a result, improving our ability to identify athletes who are at risk of injury and then intervene effectively continue to be key objectives in sports medicine.9 An important step in this process might be to develop better understanding of variables that contribute to ACL injury.

What movement pattern increases ACL injury risk?

Most ACL injuries in athletes are noncontact in nature (i.e., they do not involve collision with a teammate or opponent),10-13 and typically occur during what appears to be a fairly routine maneuver that the athlete has undoubtedly performed countless times during a career. Observations from video analysis indicate that landing with limited knee flexion and marked knee abduction motion might place athletes at risk of ACL injury.14-16 A simulation study also showed that landing in this manner can place high load on the ACL.17 As a result, landing and cutting with limited knee flexion and high knee abduction motion or loading is discouraged.9

Although it appears that we have a fairly well-developed understanding of the movement pattern that places an athlete at risk of ACL injury, our understanding of the cognitive and neuromuscular factors that contribute to this high-risk movement pattern is underdeveloped.

Our ability to test athletes for their risk of ACL injury, and then train them to reduce that risk, might improve if we required them to behave and respond in the controlled setting as they do in competition—not just to think about the test.

Influence of divided attention

iStockphoto.com 470614817

From a motor-control perspective, a potential challenge associated with sports such as basketball and soccer is that athletes must maneuver while simultaneously attending to their opponents, teammates, the goal, etc.18 In addition, they might also need to allocate attentional resources to manipulating the ball if they are in possession (e.g., dribbling). As a result, they are unable to fully focus on their movement (i.e., they must divide their attention).

The limited nature of attentional capacity has been characterized theoretically19 and tested experimentally.20 However, studies that have explored biomechanical variables related to the risk of ACL injury by means of laboratory-based motion analysis typically do not reflect the attentional demands of sports, because athletes are often able to fully attend to their movement during testing. Interestingly, it appears that attempts to reflect the attentional demands of the sports environment by requiring athletes to attend to a teammate, opponent, or ball might result in mechanics that are associated with greater risk of ACL injury.21-27

Three studies reported useful, enlightening findings:

  • McLean and colleagues26 found that peak knee abduction angles were more than 30% higher (15.0°, compared to 11.3°) when athletes performed a lateral cutting maneuver with a simulated defensive opponent present, compared with baseline trials performed without a defensive opponent.
  • Fedie and collaborators23 reported greater loading of the knee in the frontal plane when intercollegiate basketball players were required to intercept a pass shortly after cutting, compared to baseline trials during which they did not need to attend to a ball.
  • Almonroeder and colleagues21 recently found that female athletes demonstrated less knee flexion and greater knee abduction when they attended to executing a basketball chest pass shortly after landing from a cut—in contrast to what was observed in trials performed without the chest pass.

These findings appear to show that the attentional demands of sports might contribute to the risk of ACL injury by limiting an athlete’s ability to fully attend to their movement.

There is also evidence that the addition of a relatively simple secondary cognitive task, unrelated to sports, might be sufficient to influence performance of common athletic maneuvers:18,28,29

  • Seymore and collaborators29 recently found that soldiers completed a run-and-cut with less knee flexion when they were required to simultaneously count backwards, compared with baseline trials performed without an additional cognitive task.
  • Dai et al28 also reported that athletes landed with less knee flexion and higher ground reaction forces during a land-and-jump task while counting backwards, compared with baseline trials.

These findings indicate that even a subtle change to a testing protocol—to limit an athlete’s ability to fully attend to their movement—can alter cutting or landing mechanics in a manner that could increase ACL loading.

Opportunity for further research

It appears that attempts to more fully reflect the attentional demands of the sports environment could provide additional insight into mechanics that contribute to ACL injury. Conversely, failure to account for attentional demands of sports within a testing protocol could limit its ecological validity. Continuing to develop and implement testing protocols that more adequately reflect the attentional demands of sports appears warranted.

Virtual reality. Perhaps virtual reality could allow for development of a more “game-like” testing environment and, therefore, offer opportunities for advancement in this regard.30 Virtual reality would also allow researchers to adapt the environment to the actions of the athlete (e.g., virtual defenders that react during testing), which could also promote more realistic testing. In addition, development of methods that allow for analysis of movement during competition, such as model-based image-matching31 or wearable technology (e.g., inertial measurement units),32 could also provide a better understanding of how attention influences movement in sports.

Study of the individual. Attempts to explore the influence of an individual athlete’s attentional capacity might also be an avenue for future research. It is possible that athletes who have more limited attentional capacity might be challenged to a greater extent to control their movement when they must divide their attentional resources; however, this premise has not been systematically tested.

Swanik and colleagues33 reported that athletes who go on to sustain a noncontact ACL injury demonstrated relatively poor baseline performance on a clinical test of cognitive functioning (using Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing [ImPACT]), in comparison to athletes who remain uninjured. This finding appears to indicate that cognitive factors might contribute to the risk of ACL injury. However, the testing battery used by Swanik did not specifically assess attentional capacity; rather, it was designed to test cognitive processing speed and memory.

Considering the demands of the sports environment, attempts to relate the individual athlete’s attentional capacity to risk of ACL injury might also be a worthwhile avenue of research.

Cognitive study. Sports medicine professionals have highlighted the need to develop a better understanding of the role that cognitive factors (including attention) play in noncontact ACL injury.34 We agree that continuing to investigate the potential contribution of task-related cognitive demands and individual cognitive attributes is warranted. Optimally, these efforts will involve experts from a variety of disciplines.

Relevance of screening tools to assess risk of ACL injury

Development of screening tools that can identify athletes who are at risk of injury is undoubtedly a major component of prevention. Assessment of lower-extremity mechanics during performance of a drop vertical jump is a common approach to screening for risk of ACL injury.35-37 For this task, athletes drop or jump from a box, land on both feet, and immediately perform a vertical jump. Studies attempting to relate baseline landing mechanics to subsequent ACL injury have yielded inconsistent findings (i.e., some researchers have identified mechanics during the drop vertical jump that predict injury; some have not).38-42

Part of the reason for the inconsistent or limited predictive validity of the drop vertical jump might be that athletes are able to fully attend to their movement during testing—a situation that does not reflect the attentional demands of sports. Studies that have modified the standard drop vertical jump by including an overhead goal that requires attention during performance (e.g., a ball suspended overhead) have found that athletes demonstrate less knee flexion and greater knee abduction than they do in trials performed without an overhead goal.22,27 It is possible that our ability to identify athletes at risk of ACL injury would improve if we required them to divide their attention during testing. Although including sport-related “distractors” seems logical, relatively simple secondary cognitive tasks (e.g., counting backwards) may offer a sufficient challenge.

Programs for preventing ACL injury might also benefit from considering the attentional demands of sports. Providing athletes with instruction to alter their movement pattern (e.g., “Bend your knees when you land!”) is recommended for preventing ACL injury.9

Visual feedback training has also been explored, and appears to show potential for reducing mechanics associated with the risk of ACL injury.43-45

Summing up: Are benefits of training transferable to play?

Sports medicine professionals must 1) consider that athletes will be challenged to attend to movement-related cues emphasized in training when they compete and 2) not assume that improvements in performance made in a controlled training environment will carry over to movement during competition. It seems likely that training of this nature might need to be sufficient enough to achieve some level of automaticity before there will be transfer; however, the type or amount of training necessary to achieve stable changes in a movement pattern requires additional exploration.

Sarah Marie Tighe, SPT, is a student in the Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Thomas “Gus” Almonroeder, PT, DPT, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Rinker-Ross School of Health Sciences, Trine University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Disclosures: The authors have nothing to disclose.

  1. 2016-17 High School Athletics Participation Survey. 2017; Indianapolis, IN: The National Federation of State High School Associations. www.nfhs .org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2016-17_Participation_Survey_Results.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2018.
  2. NCAA recruiting facts. March 2018; Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact% 20Sheet%20WEB.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2018.
  3. Yang J, Tibbetts AS, Covassin T, et al. Epidemiology of overuse and acute injuries among competitive collegiate athletes. J Athl Train. 2012;47(2):198-204.
  4. Tirabassi J, Brou L, Khodaee M, Lefort R, et al. Epidemiology of high school sports-related injuries resulting in medical disqualification: 2005-2006 through 2013-2014 academic years. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11): 2925-2932.
  5. Ajuied A, Wong F, Smith C, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):2242-2252.
  6. Sadoghi P, von Keudell A, Vavken P. Effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention training programs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94 (9):769-776.
  7. Beck NA, Lawrence JTR, Nordin JD, et al. ACL tears in school-aged children and adolescents over 20 years. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). pii: e2016 1877.
  8. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311-319.
  9. Padua DA, DiStefano LJ, Hewett TE, et al. National Athletic Trainers’ Association Position Statement: Prevention of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. J Athl Train. 2018;53(1):5-19.
  10. Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA, Garrett WE. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics. 2000;23(6):573-578.
  11. Kobayashi H, Kanamura T, Koshida S, et al. Mechanisms of the anterior cruciate ligament injury in sports activities: a twenty-year clinical research of 1,700 athletes. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(4):669-675.
  12. Krosshaug T, Nakamae A, Boden BP, et al. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball: video analysis of 39 cases. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):359-367.
  13. Stuelcken MC, Mellifont DB, Gorman AD, Sayers MG. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in elite women’s netball: a systematic video analysis. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(16):1516-1522.
  14. Cochrane JL, Lloyd DG, Buttfield A, Seward H, McGivern J. Characteristics of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Australian football. J Sci Med Sport. 2007;10(2):96-104.
  15. Hewett TE, Torg JS, Boden BP. Video analysis of trunk and knee motion during non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: lateral trunk and knee abduction motion are combined components of the injury mechanism. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(6):417-422.
  16. Koga H, Nakamae A, Shima Y, et al. Mechanisms for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: knee joint kinematics in 10 injury situations from female team handball and basketball. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(11):2218-2225.
  17. Lin CF, Liu H, Gross MT, Weinhold P, Garrett WE, Yu B. Biomechanical risk factors of non-contact ACL injuries: a stochastic biomechanical modeling study. J Sport Health Sci. 2012;1(1):36-42.
  18. Shinya M, Wada O, Yamada M, Ichihashi N, Oda S. The effect of choice reaction task on impact of single-leg landing. Gait Posture. 2011;34(1):55-59.
  19. Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1973.
  20. Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture. 2002; 16(1):1-14.
  21. Almonroeder TG, Kernozek T, Cobb S, et al. Divided attention during cutting influences lower extremity mechanics in female athletes. Sports Biomech. 2017(Nov 13):1-13.
  22. Almonroeder TG, Kernozek T, Cobb S, et al. Cognitive demands influence lower extremity mechanics during a drop vertical jump task in female athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018(Jan 10):1-22.
  23. Fedie R, Carlstedt K, Willson JD, Kernozek TW. Effect of attending to a ball during a side-cut maneuver on lower extremity biomechanics in male and female athletes. Sports Biomech. 2010;9(3):165-177.
  24. Ford KR, Myer GD, Smith RL, Byrnes RN, Dopirak SE, Hewett TE. Use of an overhead goal alters vertical jump performance and biomechanics. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):394-399.
  25. Hughes G, Watkins J, Owen N. The effects of opposition and gender on knee kinematics and ground reaction force during landing from volleyball block jumps. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(4):384-391.
  26. McLean SG, Lipfert SW, van den Bogert AJ. Effect of gender and defensive opponent on the biomechanics of sidestep cutting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(6):1008-1016.
  27. Mok KM, Bahr R, Krosshaug T. The effect of overhead target on the lower limb biomechanics during a vertical drop jump test in elite female athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(2):161-166.
  28. Dai B, Cook RF, Meyer EA, et al. The effect of a secondary cognitive task on landing mechanics and jump performance. Sports Biomech. 2017(Feb 28):1-14.
  29. Seymore KD, Cameron SE, Kaplan JT, Ramsay JW, Brown TN. Dual-task and anticipation impact lower limb biomechanics during a single-leg cut with body borne load. J Biomech. 2017;65:131-137.
  30. Bideau B, Kulpa R, Vignais N, Brault S, Multon F, Craig C. Using virtual reality to analyze sports performance. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2010;30(2):14-21.
  31. Krosshaug T, Bahr R. A model-based image-matching technique for three-dimensional reconstruction of human motion from uncalibrated video sequences. J Biomech. 2005;38(4):919-929.
  32. Hood S, McBain T, Portas MD, Spears IR. Measurement in sports biomechanics. Measurement + Control. 2012;45(6):182-186.
  33. Swanik CB, Covassin T, Stearne DJ, Schatz P. The relationship between neurocognitive function and noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(6):943-948.
  34. Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, Benjaminse A, et al. ACL Research Retreat VII: an update on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factor identification, screening, and prevention. J Athl Train. 2015;50(10):1076-1093.
  35. Mizner RL, Chmielewski TL, Toepke JJ, Tofte KB. Comparison of 2-dimensional measurement techniques for predicting knee angle and moment during a drop vertical jump. Clin J Sport Med. 2012;22(3):221-227.
  36. Myer GD, Ford KR, Brent JL, Hewett TE. Differential neuromuscular training effects on ACL injury risk factors in “high-risk” versus “low-risk” athletes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:39.
  37. Padua DA, Marshall SW, Boling MC, Thigpen CA, Garrett WE, Beutler AI. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a valid and reliable clinical assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics: The JUMP-ACL study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):1996-2002.
  38. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):492-501.
  39. Krosshaug T, Steffen K, Kristianslund E, et al. The vertical drop jump is a poor screening test for ACL injuries in female elite soccer and handball players: a prospective cohort study of 710 athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(4):874-883.
  40. Leppänen M, Pasanen K, Kujala UM, et al. Stiff landings are associated with increased ACL injury risk in young female basketball and floorball players. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(2):386-393.
  41. Padua DA, DiStefano LJ, Beutler AI, et al. The Landing Error Scoring System as a screening tool for an anterior cruciate ligament injury-prevention program in elite-youth soccer athletes. J Athl Train. 2015;50(6):589-595.
  42. Smith HC, Johnson RJ, Shultz SJ, et al. A prospective evaluation of the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) as a screening tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(3):521-526.
  43. Dowling AV, Favre J, Andriacchi TP. Inertial sensor-based feedback can reduce key risk metrics for anterior cruciate ligament injury during jump landings. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1075-1083.
  44. Myer GD, Stroube BW, DiCesare CA, et al. Augmented feedback supports skill transfer and reduces high-risk injury landing mechanics: a double-blind, randomized controlled laboratory study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):669-677.
  45. Nyman E, Armstrong CW. Real-time feedback during drop landing training improves subsequent frontal and sagittal plane knee kinematics. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(9):988-994.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.