sports

Review
Trends Assessing Neuromuscular Fatigue in Team Sports:
A Narrative Review
Claudia Alba-Jiménez 1,2,3 , Daniel Moreno-Doutres 3, * and Javier Peña 1,2

1 Sport and Physical Activity Studies Center (CEEAF), University of Vic, Central University of Catalonia,
08500 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] (C.A.-J.); [email protected] (J.P.)
2 Sport Performance Analysis Research Group (SPARG), University of Vic, Central University of Catalonia,
08500 Barcelona, Spain
3 Club Joventut Badalona, 08912 Barcelona, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Neuromuscular fatigue is defined as a reduction induced by exercise in the maximal

voluntary force that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. An accumulation of work or an
incomplete force restoration can significantly influence the neuromuscular performance in both the
short and long terms. Thus, fatigue management is essential for controlling the training adaptations
of athletes and reducing their susceptibility to injury and illness. The main individualized monitoring
tools used to describe fatigue are questionnaires and subjective assessments of fatigue, biochemical
markers, sprint tests, and vertical jump tests. Among the subjective measures, the rating of the
perceived exertion has been widely used because of its simplicity and high validity. In terms
of the objective measures, one of the more frequently employed tools by practitioners to assess
neuromuscular fatigue is the countermovement jump. Because of its high validity and reliability,
it is accepted as the reference standard test in sports, in general, and particularly in team sports.
Our review aims to clarify how all these indicators, as well as several devices, can help coaches in



different sports contexts to monitor neuromuscular fatigue, and how these procedures should be

 used to obtain data that can be used to make decisions in complex environments.
Citation: Alba-Jiménez, C.;
Moreno-Doutres, D.; Peña, J. Trends Keywords: performance; monitoring; testing; objective measures; subjective measures
Assessing Neuromuscular Fatigue in
Team Sports: A Narrative Review.
Sports 2022, 10, 33. https://doi.org/
10.3390/sports10030033
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Antonio Tessitore The word “fatigue”, which comes from the Latin word, “fatigare”, has an original
Received: 10 December 2021
meaning of “to cause to break down”, or “to tire” [1]. Different disciplines have historically
Accepted: 18 February 2022
analyzed fatigue, and its meaning changes to best suit diverse fields of knowledge. In
Published: 28 February 2022
applied sports sciences, fatigue is described merely as the reduced capacity to obtain the
desired performance output, which limits the physical and cognitive functions by the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
interactions between the fatigability in the performance and the perceived fatigability [2–4].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
According to Enoka and Duchateau [5], homeostasis maintenance and the athlete’s sub-
published maps and institutional affil-
jective psychological state are the main factors that are related to perceived fatigability.
iations.
By contrast, the contractile function and muscle activation seem to be the most relevant
factors for performance fatigability. Short-term fatigue has a metabolic origin, while pro-
longed fatigue originates at the neuromuscular level. Both are important to ensuring sports
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
performances [6].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Neuromuscular fatigue (NMF) is a reduction in the maximal voluntary force induced
This article is an open access article by exercise, with neuromuscular function changes that are due to repeated or sustained
distributed under the terms and muscular contraction, and that are produced either at the peripheral or central levels, and
conditions of the Creative Commons that can be detected for upwards of 48 h to an extended period [7–9]. Peripheral fatigue
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// is developed earlier at the neuromuscular junction, and then at a muscular level, and it
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ may play the most relevant role in short-term muscular performance decreases. Central
4.0/). fatigue appears via voluntary muscle neural activation and tends to occur later. It may

Sports 2022, 10, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10030033 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sports

Sports 2022, 10, 33 2 of 15

cause limitations when peripheral fatigue increases, acting as a potential mechanism to

safeguard from further damage or injury [10,11]. Additionally, the development of NMF
may be task-dependent, which explains why using task-specific conditions can be more
helpful to understanding the evolution of fatigue in response to exercise demands that are
repetitive [12].
The accumulation of fatigue or incomplete recovery can significantly influence the
team sports performance, especially during regular competition with a congested fixture cal-
endar, which can have acute and chronic harmful effects (Figure 1). If the fatigue sustained
by players and their recoveries are not managed correctly, athletes can potentially be placed
at a higher risk of impaired performance, or at a more significant risk of injuries [13,14].
Although NMF control is necessary, the time needed to recover the neuromuscular function
fully is not well established. In the long term, it has been reported that 24–48 h of recovery
are necessary to return the measures of the sprint and vertical jumps to their neuromuscular
function baselines. Other research shows that the vertical jump performance is reduced
post-match, and that recovery requires at least 72 h [9,15,16]. This decrement in function can
last for up to four days after a demanding competition [13]. Furthermore, the results imply
that different individuals show relevant differences in their recovery profiles because the
recovery time after a stimulus can have an individual component [17]. Therefore, personal-
ized recovery strategies in sports are needed because some athletes benefit more from using
recovery strategies than others to restore their physiological values [18]. Psychological
factors also seem to play a pivotal role in recovery in the enhancement of the subsequent
performance in actions such as sprints [19]. Overall, these studies reinforce the importance
of individualized monitoring. To illustrate the use of tests to understand the NM status, we
want to highlight the work from Jimenez-Reyes et al. [20], which used a vertical jump test
to individualize training doses.
After fatiguing exercise, the time course and short-term recovery mechanisms are
largely dependent on the properties of the previous exercise bout and the recovery time [21].
Balsom et al. [22,23] investigated the relationship between different durations of successive
bouts of work, different between-set recovery times, and fatigue in two scientific works.
First, they modified the working time (15, 30, and 40 m) while maintaining the recovery
time between bouts. The authors concluded that a 30-s resting period is enough to recover
from the 15-m repetitions, while significant performance reductions were detected in the
other two distances. Second, they modified the resting time (30, 60, and 120 s) using a
fixed-distance sprint (40 m), and they found that 30 s was insufficient to maintain the
performance, while 60 and 120 s allowed the athletes to maintain acceleration and limit
the drop in the performance in the last 10 m. Hence, aerobic metabolism plays an essential
role after high-intensity intermittent training by restoring homeostasis during short-term
recovery periods, which minimizes the drop in the neuromuscular performance [24].
The purpose of the review is to describe the information available about the effect
of neuromuscular fatigue on the sports performance, decreasing the motor control, and,
consequently, the sports injuries. The existing methods to evaluate this marker and assess
fatigue in high-performance contexts are proposed for the control of the training load and
a better recovery.

1.1. Tools to Monitor Neuromuscular Fatigue

The management of fatigue is essential for controlling the athletes’ training adapta-
tions, for ensuring that they are ready for competition, and for reducing their susceptibility
to injury and illness. In team sports, a reliable tool to monitor fatigue should be sensitive to
the training loads and their magnitudes, and should differentiate the acute responses to
exercise from the chronic changes [25].
 Sports
Sports 2022,
2022, 10,9,33
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of
3 of 1515

Figure 1. Sources and types of fatigue.

Figure 1. Sources and types of fatigue.
1.1.1. Athlete Self-Report Measures: Questionnaires and Subjective Assessments of Fatigue
1.1. Tools to Monitor Neuromuscular Fatigue
The psychobiological state by prolonged periods of demanding cognitive activity (or
mentalThe management
fatigue) of fatigue
affects the individualis essential for controlling
perception the athletes’
of fatigue [26]. Mental training adapta-
fatigue drives
tions, for ensuring that they are ready for competition, and for
athletes to downregulate their exercise capacity, which is known to be the maximum reducing their susceptibil-
ity to injury
amount and illness.
of physical In team
exertion that sports,
an athletea reliable tool to[8].
can sustain monitor fatigue
Therefore, should bethese
measuring sensi-
tive to the
subjective trainingis loads
markers and to
necessary their magnitudes,
better understand andNMFshould
anddifferentiate
recovery [27]. theAacute
recentre-
sponses
survey onto exercise
the from the chronic changes
use of fatigue-monitoring tools on[25].
high performance athletes in team-sport
settings describes a high acceptance of the self-report questionnaires in various disciplines
1.1.1.
and Athlete Self-Report
competition Measures:
levels to assess Questionnaires
overall andThe
well-being [28]. Subjective
validated Assessments
self-reportofforms
Fa-
tigue
are custom-designed forms, such as the Profile of Mood States Questionnaire (POMS),
or the The
Recovery-Stress
psychobiologicalQuestionnaire for Athletes
state by prolonged (REST-Q),
periods which are
of demanding amongactivity
cognitive the most(or
widely
mentalused, andaffects
fatigue) whichthemay assist staff
individual in monitoring
perception the complex
of fatigue psychophysiological
[26]. Mental fatigue drives ath-
stress
letes associated with high
to downregulate degrees
their exercise ofcapacity,
fatigue and poorisrecoveries
which known to [27].
be theThe most regularly
maximum amount
used is the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The RPE is derived from
of physical exertion that an athlete can sustain [8]. Therefore, measuring these subjective a psychophysical
process
markers combining
is necessarymultiple
to bettersensations
understand andNMF
feelings of physical
and recovery stress,
[27]. discomfort,
A recent survey on and
the
fatigue
use of fatigue-monitoring tools on high performance athletes in team-sport settingsthe
during exercise or physical activity [29]. Impellizzeri et al. [30] correlated de-
RPE witha high
scribes various methods
acceptance of to
thedetermine
self-reportthe internal training
questionnaires load,disciplines
in various and they andobserve
com-
that it is alevels
petition good toindicator for it. This
assess overall method
well-being may
[28]. Theassist in the development
validated self-report forms of specific
are cus-
periodization strategies for individuals and teams. However, something relevant is that
Sports 2022, 10, 33 4 of 15

when questionnaires are implemented daily, their length should be considered. Many
team sports practitioners prefer shorter and simpler questionnaires to minimize time
constraints, which is more time-efficient when they have to be completed daily [4,27,31].
Implementing daily wellness questionnaires into an athlete monitoring program, such
as the PAR-Q, requires time, but the RPE is a quick way to know the NM statuses of the
athletes. A current study shows that a customized wellness questionnaire that encompasses
the sleep quality, fatigue, muscle soreness, and mood on a 1–5 Likert scale produced an
acceptable interday reliability, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 6.9% [4]. Against this,
some coaches raise concerns about the subjectivity and individual dimensions of these
measures, as well as the scope for athletes to manipulate the responses to facilitate favorable
outcomes [27]. Brito, Hertzog, and Nassis, in an article published in 2016 that assesses
how the contextual variables influenced the training loads of highly trained soccer players
under the age of 19, and they identified that the fatigue scores were inaccurate when using
the sessional RPE (sRPE), and detected meaningful differences during the season. The
individual fatigue scores that were reported varied significantly inside the microcycles [32].
The explanation for these inaccuracies may come from the fact that the perception of effort is
very multidimensional and is determined by physiological, psychological, and experiential
factors, as was determined by Morgan in a classic piece of research on the psychological
components of the effort sense that was published in 1994 [33]. Moreover, the assessment of
fatigue can be provided by the coach [3]. The performance markers can assist the coaching
staff when an athlete is in a state of fatigue or recovery. There are available a multitude of
fatigue markers to inform the coaching staff, and while the research in this area is plentiful,
no single reliable diagnostic marker has been identified.

1.1.2. Biochemical Markers

The acute responses and recovery times after practices and competitions can be as-
sessed using diverse biochemical, hormonal, and immunological markers that are measured
from the blood or saliva [27]. The endocrine system plays a relevant role when periodizing
the workloads of athletes, which involves optimizing the training adaptations and avoiding
further fatigue [34].
The most used biochemical markers to evaluate the responses to different workloads,
training stresses, and recoveries are testosterone and cortisol [4]. Testosterone is an anabolic
hormone, which plays a critical role in muscle hypertrophy and muscle glycogen synthe-
sis [35], and it is also a neural facilitator that could affect the motor unit excitability [36].
Cortisol is a stress hormone, and is an indicator of the endocrine system’s response to exer-
cise [34]. The independent responses to cortisol and testosterone have been widely studied,
along with the changes in the anabolic–catabolic balance, or the testosterone:cortisol ratio
(T:C), which are often observed [3]. The T:C ratio represents the imbalance between the
anabolic and catabolic states, or the response to the training load, and it has been widely
employed as a physiological signal to determine the anabolic and catabolic activity dur-
ing increased workload periods [37]. It is hypothesized that an increase in the training
load will decrease the T:C ratio, which shows an imbalance in the anabolic and catabolic
responses [38]. A lowered T:C ratio means that players endure a catabolic hormonal profile
for up to 24 h after a game. Thus, the relationship between testosterone and cortisol has
been used as evidence of increased anabolic and catabolic activity during periods with
high training loads, with the data indicating that decreases of 30% or over are the relevant
markers of overreaching [37]. Creatine kinase (CK) is another relevant fatigue marker
in athletes and players [3,4]. The CK enzyme is stored inside the muscle cells, but it is
often released into the bloodstream after heavy exercise, which indicates muscle damage.
Although the evidence appears compelling for CK’s use as a fatigue-monitoring tool in
team sports, large individual variability in the resting CK levels exists, which makes it
problematic to measure the changes induced by training [4]. CK has also shown large
individual variability, with a high day-to-day variation of nearly 27% [27]. After all, several
measures display low reliability and substantial intraindividual differences, which makes
Sports 2022, 10, 33 5 of 15

it challenging to obtain accurate measurements [3]. Moreover, the time, cost, and expertise
required for the data collection and analysis are all high, the analysis is time-consuming,
and there is generally a relatively long lag time to obtain feedback. These methodological
limitations limit their use in high-performance environments and potentially impair the
usefulness of such markers in a cyclic fatigue-monitoring system. The precise control of the
previous exercise, the time of the day, the diet, the presence of injuries, the inconvenience
of taking venipuncture blood samples, the possible unwillingness of some players to be
subjected to invasive tests, and the relatively high cost associated with laboratory analysis,
make this method difficult to implement in a practical training environment [3]. Moreover,
the temporal relationships to the neuromuscular performance are not well established yet,
and the multifaceted nature of fatigue makes it difficult to rely on a single biochemical,
hormonal, or immunological marker [27].

1.1.3. Surface Electromyography

Electromyography (EMG) refers to the collective electric signal from the muscles
controlled by the nervous system that is produced during muscle contraction [39]. The
EMG signal results from many physiological, anatomical, and technical factors. Proper
detection methods may manage the effects of some of these factors, but others are not easily
regulated with the current technology, and their potential effects on the signals may only
be surmised and considered [40]. There are two types of EMG signals: surface EMG and
intramuscular EMG. Surface EMG (sEMG) is preferable when obtaining information about
the time or intensity of the superficial muscle activation with noninvasive electrodes [39].
The sEMG signal is used as an indicator of the muscle activation for its relationship to
the force produced by a muscle, and as an index of the fatigue processes occurring within
a muscle [40]. Thus, sEMG signals are related to the skeletal musculature’s biochemical
and physiological changes during fatiguing contractions [41]. It is also applicable to the
study of static actions that require a muscular effort of a postural type, but its use is
limited to those involving dynamic movements. Dynamic actions have to be synchronized
with the recording of the other measurement systems that provide the cinematic data as
a camera [42]. Its principal advantages are its noninvasiveness, its applicability in situ,
the real-time fatigue monitoring during the performance of the defined work, the ability
to monitor the fatigue of a particular muscle, and the correlations with the biochemical
and physiological muscle changes during the fatiguing [41]. It is evident that sEMG has
several advantages, but it has severe reliability problems, and it is still challenging to
validate the relationships observed between the sEMG parameters and the physiological
events. The lack of standards for the sensors, configurations, electrode placement, and
recording protocols has adversely affected the possibility of its integration into the team
sport context [43].

1.1.4. Sprinting Ability

Sprint tests have been widely used to describe the NMF of athletes and their perfor-
mances in various sports, and most of them use similar sprint distances, such as 5, 10, and
20 m [4,17,27,44–47]. Very large correlations have been found between the speed loss and
the lactate (r = 0.83) and ammonia (r = 0.86) concentrations when the metabolic responses
to the sprint training are focused on maintaining a maximal speed until a given speed
loss is reached [20]. These findings support the use of sprint tests as an excellent tool
for determining the fatigue responses because of their agreement with the physiological
gold-standard measures. Different sprint distances have been studied to improve our
understanding of how NMF and performance interact. Thus, the type of sprinting (running,
rowing, skiing, or leg or arm cycling), the number of sprints, the length of each sprint, the
time to recover between sprints, and the work-to-rest ratios of a sprint have been analyzed.
These factors may vary the sprint performance, thus affecting the NMF interpretation.
Using task-specific parameters may help to understand the development of NMF when
responding to a repeated sprint exercise in a given sport [12]. Hence, many authors agree
Sports 2022, 10, 33 6 of 15

that this drill is the most task-specific measure of NMF [27,44,46,47]. According to Mar-
rier et al. [46], in team sports, such as rugby sevens, sprint accelerations and decelerations
are more frequent than vertical jumps (VJ). Sprint tests rely primarily on the concentric
muscle action, whereas the VJ fundamentally relies on a stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) [47].
A running test could be more sensitive to neuromuscular status changes than a jump test
because of the higher task-specific nature. Garret et al. [44] observed this trend in Australian
Football, a predominantly running sport. Surprisingly, the authors found similar results
between the sprint test and the vertical jump tests, which shows an alternative method
of assessing the neuromuscular function in high-performance athletes. In basketball, the
sprint speed has been identified as a relevant attribute; specifically, 5 m of sprint time
showed a moderate inverse relationship to the playing time in the NCAA Division II
competition. Thus, monitoring the athletes’ acceleration abilities can be a more suitable
method of identifying fatigue, in opposition to the maximal speed. The sprint performance
could be considered a valid tool for the assessment of NMF in sports where sprints are
specific to the task [20]. Since it does not cause excessive fatigue, it is easy to administer as
a part of the warm-up, and it can be applied to large groups of athletes concurrently in a
different number of environments and settings, i.e., indoors and outdoors, which increases
its ecological validity [44]. However, some authors report that the sprint performance was
less sensitive as a fatigue marker compared with the CMJ, which suggests that its use to
profile recovery is limited [17].

1.1.5. Vertical Jump Tests

The benefit of vertical jumps as a practical measure of NMF is indicated by the high
degree of the adoption of these testing procedures in high-performance sports settings.
These tests have been used in many studies to investigate the recovery times from demand-
ing practices or competitions [28]. Vertical jump tests are practical, well accepted by elite
players, and are valid and reliable, which makes them potentially valuable for detecting
and quantifying fatigue in in-field conditions [46]. Furthermore, jump tests allow pro-
longed superior sensitivity to altered neuromuscular function, and likely, NMF reflects the
stretch-shortening capability of the lower-limb muscles and the ability to assess muscular
fatigue [4,27]. Jump tests are quick and easy to implement, with many of the techniques sci-
entifically validated. Moreover, there are reliable technologies available for adopting them
that cause minimal additional fatigue. In sports such as basketball or volleyball, athletes
perform many offensive and defensive movements while training and competing, includ-
ing accelerations, decelerations, and COD, which rely on the athlete’s ability to transition
from eccentric to concentric contractions, which is effectively the SSC [48,49]. The repeated
execution of these movements can result in diminished movement efficiency through NMF
and performance fatigue [4]. Additionally, vertical jumps remain stable during and across
multiple days. This stability may be due to the athletes regularly performing multiple
jumps through training and competition, which results in more reproducible movement
patterns. The variables related to the vertical jump output and the loading strategy exhibit
acceptable trial-to-trial and interday reliabilities, although some jumps are more reliable
than others. In recent research, the authors of [2] suggest that the mean force, the mean
power, and the relative mean power should be used by practitioners, as they exhibit both
acceptable reliabilities and sensitivities. Conversely, Taylor et al. [28] also asked strength
and conditioning coaches and sport science professionals about vertical jump tests and
jump assessment protocols. The respondents indicated that the jump height is still the most
popular variable assessed in fatigue-monitoring systems. However, numerous other kinetic
and kinematic variables, such as the peak and mean velocities, the peak and mean powers,
and the peak force, were also monitored. Apart from the jump height, the variable flight
time to the contraction time (FT:CT) of the vertical jump test is a valid tool for assessing
NMF [2,50].
Several Vertical Jump Tests Exist [51]. Nevertheless, the squat jump (SJ), the coun-
termovement jump (CMJ), and the drop jump (DJ) are the usual jump tests that are used
Sports 2022, 10, 33 7 of 15

within the literature [27,28,45,52]. Even though the use of the three jumps mentioned above
to monitor fatigue is well documented, the CMJ is the most popular vertical jump test
among practitioners for assessing NMF [4,15–17,44,45,52,53]. Taylor et al. [28] studied the
current trends through a questionnaire, and for the performance tests, the VJ was the most
popular and was used by 54% of all the responders. The VJ test is the performance test
that produces less fatigue when compared with the sprinting or strength tests [27]. While
the simple measures of the jump performance are cheap and easy to administer with large
groups, they are helpful because, as described above, they reflect the stretch-shortening
capability of the lower-limb musculature and the ability to evaluate muscle fatigue [27].

1.2. Countermovement Jump

The countermovement jump (CMJ) is the vertical jump test that is more frequently
used to assess the jumping performance and the neuromuscular status. Previous works
have studied its validity and reliability compared to other VJs (Table 1).

Table 1. Validity and reliability of the CMJ in different studies.

Study Participants ICC CV% Cronbach

Markovic et al. [51] n = 93, health collegiate athletes 0.98 2.8 0.98
Slinde et al. [54] n = 30, recreational athletes 0.93 0.96
Richter et al. [55] n = 324, secondary school athletes 0.96 4.4
Intersession 4.9
Gathercole et al. [15] n = 11, college-level team-sport athletes
Intrasession 5.3
Byrne et al. [56] n = 18, hurling players 0.95 5.5 0.95
Intersession 0.96 4.7 0.99
Heishman et al. [57] n = 22, NCAA Division 1 collegiate basketball players
Intrasession 0.97 3.8 0.99
Fitzpatrick et al. [52] n = 17, elite youth soccer players 0.88 4.8
ICC = interclass correlation; CV% = coefficient of variation; Cronbach = Cronbach’s α.

Many factors can influence the CMJ. The main factors cited in the bibliography are:
The countermovement depth: The protocols describe that the jump initiates with the
participants in an upright position before executing the vertical jump, which starts with a
countermovement until the legs are bent down to 90◦ [58]. Despite this, a protocol wherein
a self-selected knee angle is used may present higher reliability, and a short test duration
should potentially minimize errors [37,56,57,59–65];
The arm swing: The arm swing influences the vertical jump performance, and increases
the jump height compared to vertical jumps without an arm swing [54,57,60,63,66,67].
Despite the performance improvement, the lower variability due to less error of measure-
ment, a smaller average measurement bias, a reduction in the measurement difference
variability, and a higher reliability of the CMJ without the arm swing versus the CMJ with
the arm swing suggests that maintaining the arms in a fixed position provides a more stable
form than allowing unrestricted arm movement [63,68].
The jumps considered for the analysis are another factor of the variability between the
studies. A meta-analysis of the CMJ test to monitor the neuromuscular status determined
a predominance of studies using the highest CMJ performance value for their analyses.
However, when comparing the highest and average results, the average jump results were
more sensitive than the highest jumps in identifying fatigue or the effects of supercompen-
sation [69]. A systematic review of the CMJ and the SJ defined the most common numbers
of trials performed in the published research and found that three jumps were found 76%
of the time, compared to two jumps (11%), and more than three jumps (13%) [58].
Despite being the most commonly used test to evaluate the vertical performance, there
is no general agreement in terms of the CMJ protocol. The most common description in the
literature follows the upcoming rules: the CMJ has to be performed with the participants’
hands on their hips and starting from an upright static position with their legs straight. The
Sports 2022, 10, 33 8 of 15

participants have to be instructed to squat by bending the knees at approximately 90◦ angles
as quickly as possible. Then, they should jump as high as possible, keeping the legs straight,
and landing with both feet together [54,61,70–74]. In a recent study, McMahon et al. [75]
offer a detailed description of the CMJ phases (Table 2).

Table 2. CMJ phases. Adapted from McMahon et al. [75].

Weighting Phase Athlete is Required to Stand as Still as Possible for 1 s.

Unweighting phase Athlete starts the countermovement with a combined flexion of the hip, knees, and ankles.
Athlete decelerates their center of mass (COM), which coincides with the deepest part of the squat.
Braking phase
The leg extensor muscle-tendon units are actively stretching to decelerate the body mass.
Athlete extends hips, knees, and ankles.
Propulsion phase
Positive COM velocity is achieved.
Athlete leaves the floor (it starts at the take-off and ends at the touchdown).
Flight phase
Maximal positive COM displacement.
COM velocity deceleration
Landing phase
Athlete “absorbs” the landing by flexing the ankles, knees, and hips.

1.3. Is Countermovement Jump a Valid Tool to Measure Neuromuscular Fatigue?

The countermovement jump (CMJ) is one of the main tools used to examine the level
of the neuromuscular status in elite sports. Because of its reliability and validity, the CMJ
test has become the “gold standard” test for monitoring neuromuscular fatigue in high-
performance sports settings [44]. Other authors also suggest that its high repeatability and
fatigue sensitivity prove its usefulness, and it is currently the most valid test for detecting
neuromuscular fatigue (NMF) [45].
There have been many attempts to define the fatigue induced in the neuromuscular
function through CMJ assessments in team-sport athletes. In a scientific work by Gather-
cole et al. [15], the intraday and interday reliability comparisons indicated high reliability,
with an absence of systematic changes in the CMJ reproducibility. With an intraday CV
of 5.3, and an interday CV of 4.9%, CMJ testing could be a proper noninvasive method
to use in athlete NMF monitoring. The reliability of the CMJ to measure NMF has also
been studied in other sports, such as soccer, rugby, and basketball. In semiprofessional
soccer players, the CMJ has excellent test–retest reliability for measuring NMF [52]. The
authors describe an ICC of 0.88 and a CV of 4.8% in the variable jump height. In Aus-
tralian Rules Football, the results confirm the jump height as a sensitive measure of NMF
after a match play, with a CV of 8.5% and a smallest worthwhile change of 1% [44]. In
professional rugby league players, McLean et al. [13] used the CMJ to monitor NMF, and
they suggest that regular analyses of the CMJ are valuable tools for monitoring in-season
fatigue. Roe et al. [47] have demonstrated that the CMJ metrics are useful for monitoring
the lower-body neuromuscular function in rugby union players. In basketball, the CMJ
has also been studied as a tool to measure NMF. A study carried out with professional
and semiprofessional basketball players found a high test–retest reliability, with an ICC
of 0.82 and a CV of 3.8% in the jump height variable [76]. In another study on Division I
men’s collegiate basketball, Edwards et al. [2] studied the reliability and sensitivity of NMF
through the VJ. The jump height expressed acceptable trial-to-trial reliability, with a CV
of 5.6%, and a smallest worthwhile change of 2.4%. However, this variable showed lower
interday reliability, with a CV of 12.1%. The conflicting interday reliability only results
from the jump height variable. For example, the variable’s peak force and mean force
showed high interday reliabilities, with CVs of 3.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Apart from
the jump height, the vast number of variables exhibiting acceptable reliability suggests
that the CMJ strategy and the output remain stable during and across multiple days. This
stability may be attributed to the basketball athletes regularly performing multiple jumps
and SSC activities, such as COD through training and competition, which results in more
Sports 2022, 10, 33 9 of 15

reproducible movement patterns. Along the same idea, Spiteri et al. [16] also studied
NMF in basketball and they indicate the the FT:CT appears to be a sensitive measure for
monitoring the training intensity and for detecting NMF following training and game
performances.

1.4. Technologies to Measure the Vertical Jump

There are several technologies available on the market to measure the CMJ:
Force platforms (FPs): Force platforms are considered the “gold standard technology”,
which measure the force exerted on it by the subject [77];
Contact mats (CMs): These are electric circuits that are mechanically activated by
pressure, and most of them use the flight time to indirectly estimate the jump height [78,79];
Photoelectric cell (PC) systems: These systems measure the flight times with two
parallel bars: one receiver unit and one transmitter unit [80];
Local positioning systems (LPS): These are based on either global positioning systems
(GPS) or indoor positioning systems, with accelerometers and gyroscopes integrated into
the device to calculate and perform corrections to the vertical acceleration recordings [70];
Phone apps: These are based on the detection of the initial and final phases of the
jump through high-speed recording technology [81];
Accelerometers: These classify movements in the vertical axis as jumps, and quantify
the vertical component of each jump using a proprietary algorithm [7].
Traditionally, the validation of new technologies to assess jumps has been carried out
using FPs. When FPs were compared with CMs, Steinman, Shirley, and Fuller [82] described
similar jump heights with high ICCs; contrarily, Withmer et al. [83] found no consistent
results in the flight time variables between both tools. Nonetheless, the CM is considered
a valid technology for measuring the VJ performance [82,84]. For the PC, Attia et al. [71]
determined a high correlation between PCs and FPs for the measurement of the vertical
jump height, despite a present systematic bias, while Glatthorn et al. [80] found an excellent
test–retest reliability between both technologies. For the LPS, a descriptive analysis shows
that the flight time recorded by an inertial device was almost equal to the one registered by
Sports 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW the FP, and there were no meaningful differences between the devices [70]. A recent review
10 of 15
on the use of a phone app for jump-based diagnostics also employed the FP as a “gold
standard” to assess the validity and reliability of that technology [81,85,86]. Accelerometers
have also been validated to FPs, with the results describing an overestimation in the jump
[81,85,86]. Accelerometers have also been validated to FPs, with the results describing an
heights [68,87].
overestimation in the jump heights [68,87].
The main advantages and disadvantages of the presented technologies are described
The main advantages and disadvantages of the presented technologies are described
in Table 3.
in Table 3.
Table 3. Advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) of the presented technologies.
Table 3. Advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) of the presented technologies.
Technologies Pros Cons Suitability in Team Sports
Technologies Pros Cons Suitability in Team Sports
- High levels of - Expensive [88]
- - Expensive
Bulky [88] [88] - Price
precision and
- Highaccuracy
levels ofinpreci-
VJ - - Bulky
Hard to[88] - - PriceMeasurement
test [88] in VJ test -
sion and accuracy transport
Hard [88]
to transport - time
[88] Measurement time
[88] - Kinetic and - - Specific
Specific computer
computer - - Processing time
Processing
Force platforms
Force platforms temporal software [88] - Reliability and
- Kinetic and temporal software
-
[88]
Limited to a
time
variables validity
variables producing
producing
force– - Limited
laboratoryto a labora- -
- Ecology
Reliability and
time curves [78]
force–time tory setting/No
setting/No sport-spe- validity
curves [78] sport-specific
cific usability [89] - Ecology
usability [89]
- Specific computer - Price
software - Measurement
- Easy to transport [90] - Feet are not directly time
- Low cost [90] in contact with the specific - Processing
Contact mats
- High accessibility sport surface [80] time
[90] - Indirectly measures - Reliability and
the jump height by flight validity
time [91] - Ecology
 Technologies
Technologies Pros
Pros Cons
Cons Suitability
Suitability inin Team
Team Sports
Sports
Technologies Pros -- Cons
Expensive -- Suitability in Team Sports
Expensive [88] [88] Price
Price
-- High levels of
High levels of preci- -- preci- - Bulky
Expensive [88]
Bulky [88][88] -
-- Measurement
Price
Measurement
-sion
sion and
High
and accuracy
levels ofin
accuracy VJ
inpreci- test---
VJ test Hard
Hard to
Bulky [88]
to transport
transport [88] [88]-time
time Measurement
Sports 2022, 10, 33 10 of 15
Force [88] and accuracy in VJ test ---
[88]
sion Specific
Hard computer
to transport
Specific computer[88] time -- Processing
Processing
Force platforms
platforms- Kinetic and temporal software [88] time
[88]
- Kinetic and temporal -software Specific
[88] computer -time Processing
Force platforms variables producing force– - Limited --
-variables
Kinetic and temporal
producing force– software
- [88] to
Limited to aa labora-
labora- time Reliability
Reliability and
and
time
variablescurves Table
[78]
producing 3. Cont.
force– -tory setting/No
Limited to sport-spe-
a labora- -validityReliability and
time curves [78] tory setting/No sport-spe- validity
time curves [78] cific
tory usability
cificsetting/No
usability [89]
sport-spe- validity
[89] -- Ecology
Ecology
Technologies Pros Cons Suitability in Team Sports
cific usability [89] - Ecology
-- - Specific
Specificcomputer
Specific computer
computer -- Price
Price
software -
-software
software
-
Specific
Feet are not
computer - Measurement
Price
- - Price Measurement
-- -EasyEasy to to --
to transport
Easytransport transport[90]
[90]
[90] software Feet
Feet are
directlyare innot
not directly
directly
contact - -time
time Measurement
Measurement time
--- -
Low
Easy
Low cost
to
cost [90]
transport
[90]
Low cost [90] [90] -in
in contact
Feet
with
contact with
are
the
with not the
specific
the specific
directly
specific -
- time
- Processing
Processing time
Processing
Contact
Contactmats
Contact mats
mats - Reliability and
--- -High
Low
High Highaccessibility
cost [90]
accessibility sport
in surface
sport
contact
sport surfacewith [80]
surface
[80] specific -time
the[80] time Processing
Contact mats [90] validity
-[90] Highaccessibility
accessibility [90] sport -- - surface
Indirectly
Indirectly
Indirectly [80]measures
measures --
time Reliability
Reliability and
and
measures the - Ecology
[90] -the jump
the jump height
Indirectly
jumpheight
heightby
by flight
measures
by flight -validityReliability
validity and
time
the
time [91]
jump
[91]
flightheight
time [91] by flight validity-- Ecology
Ecology
time [91] - Ecology
- Easy to transport - Specific computer -- Price
-- Price
Easy
Easy to
andto transport
easy to
transport and --
and Specific
Specific computer
software computer -- PricePrice
Measurement
handle [80] - Indirectlycomputer - - Measurement
-easy
easy toEasy
to handle
handle [80]
to transport
[80] and -software
softwareSpecific - time
Measurement time
-- - Can be placed on - measures the -time Measurement
Photoelectric
Photoelectric
easy
cells
toCan be
handle
Can placed
besports
all
[80] on
placed on all
all software
- Indirectly
Indirectly measures
measures - - Processing time
Processing
Photoelectric sports surfaces [91] jump height by time
- Processing
cells system
system
Photoelectric
-sportsCan be placed
surfaces
surfaces [91][91]on all -the the jump
jump height
Indirectly
flightheight
time [91]
by
by flight
measures
flight - time
-
Reliability and
Processing
cells system - time
validity
sports
- -Relatively
surfaces
Relatively
Relatively cost-effec-
[91]
cost-effec- the time
- jump
time [91]
[91] height by flight
Expensive
cells system tive compared - -- Ecology
time Reliability
Reliability and
and
-tive compared
Relatively with
cost-effective FPs
cost-effec-
with FPs --
time Expensive
Expensivetocompared
compared
[91] compared validity
[80] compared with CMs [81] - Reliability
validity and
tive
[80]compared with FPs -to
to CMs
CMs [81]
Expensive
[81] compared - Ecology
FPs [80] validity
- Ecology
[80] to CMs [81]
-- Lightweight and - Expensive [70] - Ecology
-
Lightweight and
Lightweight and -- - Expensive [70]
portable [70] Expensive
Lack of validity [70]of
-portableLightweight
[70]
portable [70] and -- Lack of validity
- Expensive
some devices
Lack of validity [92] of
[70] of
--
portable -Easily
[70]
Easily placed
Easilyplaced
placed in
in any
any some
in
- -
some devices
Lack
Lack of
devicesof [92]
validity
[92] of
-segment
segmentEasily of
any
of the body
segment
placed
the body in[70]
of
any -
[70] transparency of -- Price
Price
the body [70] some
- Lack
devices of transparency
of [92]
Lack companies
transparency -
-segment
- Data
Data from
of the
from many
body
many [70]sub- some
sub- of some companies in re- -- Measurement
Price
Measurement
- Data from many -of some Lack of transparency
companies
in reporting in re- time
-jects
jects can
Data
can be
be obtained
from many
obtained at the
sub-
at the - time Measurement
Local
Local subjects can be porting
of some
porting device
device validity
companies
device in re-
validity [92]
-
[92] Price
same
jects
same cantime
timebe [70]
obtained
[70]
obtained at at
the the - -- Measurement
time Processing
Processing
time
positioning
Local
positioning --
porting Differences
validity
device[92]
Differences resulting
validity [92] time
resulting
Local positioning -
same
- Subjects
time [70]
same
Subjects do
time
do not
not[70]have
have - Differences - -time Processing
Processing time
systems
positioning
systems -from different
different software
from Differences resulting
software ver-
ver-
systems -to to be -
be SubjectsSubjects
connected
connected doby
by doany
not not
anyhaveca-
ca- sions resulting from - time
-- Reliability and and
Reliability
Reliability and
systems have to be from
sions from
different
from the
the same
software
same com-
com-ver- validity
ble,
to benor
ble, nor need
connected
need to
to take-off
by any ca-
take-off or
or different software -validityReliability
validity and
connected by any sions pany
panyfrom [92]
[92] thefrom
versions samethecom- - - Ecology
land
ble,
landnorin
in aaneed
delimited
to nor
delimited
cable, take-offarea
areato
need or - validity
- Ecology
Ecology
pany
- Differences
Differences between
same
[92] between
[70]
land
[70] in a delimited
take-off or area
land in - Ecology
-companies company with
Differences [92]the same
between
-- Immediate
a delimited feedback companies with the same
[70] Immediate feedback types - Differences
of
area [70] companies of technologies [92]
types between technologies
with the same
[92]
-[70]
[70] Immediate feedback
Sports 2022, 9, x FOR[70]
-
PEER REVIEW
Immediate types of technologies
companies with [92] 11 of 15
feedback [70] the same types of
technologies [92]
- Absence of
- scientific
Absenceworksof scientific - Price
-Affordable
Affordable reporting their
- [93][93] works reporting their relia- - - Price Measurement
- Portable [81,93] reliability [86]
- Portable [81,93] bility
- [86]
A determination - time
Measurement time
- Inexpensive [81]
- -Inexpensive
Frequently[81] - A the
of stability of of -
determination - Processing time
Processing
Phoneapps
Phone apps - Reliability and
- Frequently
availableavailable
on both the stability of phone appsphone apps in time
quantifying the validity
Androidand
on both Android and iOS in quantifying the jump - - Ecology
Reliability and
iOS [93] jump
[93] performance overover
performance time is validity
needed [86]
time is - Ecology
needed [86]
- Simple [94] - Price
- Inexpensive [94] - Measurement
- Algorithms are not
- Monitor athletes in time
available for public inspec-
real-time during training - Processing
Accelerometers tion [94]
and official matches [95] time
- Unclear thresholds
- Provide real-time in- - Reliability and
[94]
formation in the moment to validity
coaches [78] - Ecology
 - Absence of scientific - Price
- Affordable [93] works reporting their relia- - Measurement
- Portable [81,93] bility [86] time
Sports 2022, 10, 33 11 of 15
- Inexpensive [81] - A determination of - Processing
Phone apps
- Frequently available the stability of phone apps time
on both Android and iOS in quantifying the jump - Reliability and
[93] Table 3. Cont. performance over time is validity
needed [86] - Ecology
Technologies Pros Cons Suitability in Team Sports
- Simple [94]
- Simple
- [94]
Inexpensive [94] - Price
- Inexpensive
- [94]
Monitor athletes - PriceMeasurement
- - Algorithms
Algorithms areare not -
- in real-time
Monitor athletes in not available for - time
Measurement time
during training available for public inspec-
real-time during training public - - Processing time
Processing
Accelerometers
Accelerometers and official tion [94]
inspection [94] - Reliability and
and officialmatches
matches [95]
[95]
time
- - Unclear
Unclear thresholds validity
- Provide
- real-time
Provide in-
real-time - Ecology
Reliability and
[94] thresholds [94] -
formation information
in the momentin theto validity
moment to
coaches [78] - Ecology
coaches [78]
Suitability:from
Suitability: from 0 (poor)
0 (poor) to 5 to 5 (excellent).
(excellent).

2.
2. Training
TrainingProgram
Programand andFatigue
Fatigue
Monitoring
Monitoring team team sports
sports activity
activity and its its recovery
recovery cancan inform
inform athletes’ fatigue [16].
Furthermore,
Furthermore,there thereis is
also a need
also a needto ensure the appropriate
to ensure monitoring
the appropriate of individuals
monitoring within
of individuals
awithin
team environment. Athletes may respond differently to the training
a team environment. Athletes may respond differently to the training stimulus, stimulus, and the
training loads required for the adaptation may differ significantly,
and the training loads required for the adaptation may differ significantly, and conse- and consequently, so may
the fatigue
quently, sothat
mayistheproduced
fatigue bythattheis training
produced load. Monitoring
by the the individual
training load. Monitoring athlete allows
the individ-
for
ual athlete allows for the identification of those athletes who are not responding toand
the identification of those athletes who are not responding to the training program, the
for the control
training program, of theandinternal
for theand external
control of the loads to avoid
internal the appearance
and external loads toofavoid
fatigue
the[96].
ap-
Moreover,
pearance ofthe movement
fatigue technique,
[96]. Moreover, theormovement
the agility,technique,
are related or to
thethe performance
agility, are relatedandto
influence fatigue [48]. When local muscular work is relatively heavy,
the performance and influence fatigue [48]. When local muscular work is relatively heavy, and of a considerable
duration, the fatigue it duration,
and of a considerable causes is transferred
the fatigue to and impairs
it causes both the to
is transferred speed
and and the accuracy
impairs both the
in
speed and the accuracy in the neuromotor-coordination tasks performed by these and[97].
the neuromotor-coordination tasks performed by these and the associated muscles the
There is extensive
associated muscles literature about
[97]. There is team sportsliterature
extensive and NMF.about The performance
team sports tests have been
and NMF. The
validated
performance withtests
highhave
reliability
been in professional
validated with soccer, rugby, and
high reliability in basketball
professional teams. However,
soccer, rugby,
there is no evidence
and basketball teams.of the different
However, player
there is nopositions
evidence in of
anythesport [44,47,52].
different player positions in
any
3. sport [44,47,52].
Conclusions
The present narrative review describes NMF and the complex processes that cause
3. Conclusions
this specific type of fatigue. NMF has been reported as a reduction induced by exercise
in theThe presentvoluntary
maximal narrative force
review describesby
produced NMF and the
a muscle orcomplex
a group processes
of muscles,thatand
cause
to
this specific its
understand type of fatigue.
extent NMF
is pivotal has been
because reported
of its as a reduction
consequences induced
on sports by exercise
performances andin
the maximal voluntary force produced by a muscle or a group of muscles,
athlete statuses. Various NMF monitoring procedures have been used in the past, but not and to under-
stand
all its extent
of them is pivotal
are suitable because
in team of itsFor
sports. consequences
example, inon sports
team performances
sports, biochemicaland athlete
markers
statuses.
are Various
not used NMF methodological
for their monitoring procedures have The
limitations. beenquestionnaires
used in the past,andbutsubjective
not all of
assessments
them are suitableof fatigue
in teamare sports.
not accurate becauseinthe
For example, perception
team of effort and
sports, biochemical fatigueare
markers is
multidimensional. However, performance tests (sprinting ability and
not used for their methodological limitations. The questionnaires and subjective assess-vertical jump test)
are
mentsthe of
most usedare
fatigue for not
theiraccurate
practical application
because in team sports
the perception training.
of effort Furthermore,
and fatigue not
is multidi-
all these monitoring strategies provide the same information on how
mensional. However, performance tests (sprinting ability and vertical jump test) are the athletes respond
to training
most andtheir
used for nontraining stressors. This
practical application article
in team reviews
sports theFurthermore,
training. main technologies
not all used
these
and their advantages and disadvantages in terms of the cost, the time needed to gather
monitoring strategies provide the same information on how athletes respond to training
and process the information obtained, as well as in terms of the validity and reliability.
and nontraining stressors. This article reviews the main technologies used and their ad-
We recommend that coaches and practitioners decide which are the most appropriate
vantages and disadvantages in terms of the cost, the time needed to gather and process
for their particular situations, but ecology is the most important of these procedures in
high-performance sports settings.

Author Contributions: The manuscript was written by C.A.-J., D.M.-D., and J.P. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sports 2022, 10, 33 12 of 15

Funding: The authors, C.A.J. and J.P., received funding to conduct this study from the Industrial
Doctorate Plan from the Government of Catalonia, under the grant: EMC/964/2018. The funders
had no role in the study design, the data collection and analyses, in the decision to publish, or in the
manuscript preparation.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Abbiss, C.R.; Laursen, P.B. Is Part of the Mystery Surrounding Fatigue Complicated by Context? J. Sci. Med. Sport 2007, 10,
277–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Edwards, T.; Spiteri, T.; Bonhotal, J.; Piggott, B.; Haff, G.G.; Joyce, C. Reliability and Sensitivity of Neuromuscular and Perceptual
Fatigue Measures in Collegiate Men’s Basketball. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 12, 1–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Taylor, K. Monitoring Neuromuscular Fatigue in High Performance Athletes; Edith Cowan University: Joolandrup, Australia, 2012.
[CrossRef]
4. Edwards, T.; Spiteri, T.; Piggott, B.; Bonhotal, J.; Haff, G.G.; Joyce, C. Monitoring and Managing Fatigue in Basketball. Sports 2018,
6, 19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Enoka, R.M.; Duchateau, J. Translating Fatigue to Human Performance. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2016, 48, 2228–2238. [CrossRef]
6. Wu, P.P.Y.; Sterkenburg, N.; Everett, K.; Chapman, D.W.; White, N.; Mengersen, K. Predicting Fatigue Using Countermovement
Jump Force-Time Signatures: PCA Can Distinguish Neuromuscular versus Metabolic Fatigue. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219295.
[CrossRef]
7. MacDonald, K.; Bahr, R.; Baltich, J.; Whittaker, J.L.; Meeuwisse, W.H. Validation of an Inertial Measurement Unit for the
Measurement of Jump Count and Height. Phys. Ther. Sport 2017, 25, 15–19. [CrossRef]
8. Walker, K.H.; Hall, D.; Hust, W. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical and Laboratory Examinations, 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann:
Boston, MA, USA, 1990.
9. Thomas, K.; Brownstein, C.G.; Dent, J.; Parker, P.; Goodall, S.; Howatson1, G. Neuromuscular Fatigue and Recovery after Heavy
Resistance, Jump, and Sprint Training. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2018, 50, 2526–2535. [CrossRef]
10. Gandevia, S.C. Spinal and Supraspinal Factors in Human Muscle Fatigue. Am. Physiol. Soc. 2001, 81, 1725–1789. [CrossRef]
11. Woolstenhulme, M.T.; Biley, B.K.; Allsen, P.E. Vertical Jump, Anaerobic Power, and Shooting Accuracy Are Not Altered 6 Hours
after Strength Training in Collegiate Women Basketball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004, 18, 422–425.
12. Collins, B.W.; Pearcey, G.E.P.; Buckle, N.C.M.; Power, K.E.; Button, D.C. Neuromuscular Fatigue during Repeated Sprint Exercise:
Underlying Physiology and Methodological Considerations. Br. J. Psychiatry 2018, 43, 1166–1175. [CrossRef]
13. McLean, B.D.; Coutts, A.J.; Kelly, V.; McGuigan, M.R.; Cormack, S.J. Neuromuscular, Endocrine, and Perceptual Fatigue Responses
during Different Length between-Match Microcycles in Professional Rugby League Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2010, 5,
367–383. [CrossRef]
14. Jones, C.M.; Griffiths, P.C.; Mellalieu, S.D. Training Load and Fatigue Marker Associations with Injury and Illness: A Systematic
Review of Longitudinal Studies. Sport. Med. 2017, 47, 943–974. [CrossRef]
15. Gathercole, R.; Sporer, B.; Stellingwerff, T.; Sleivert, G. Alternative Countermovement-Jump Analysis to Quantify Acute
Neuromuscular Fatigue. Int. J. Sport. Physiol. Perform. 2015, 10, 84–92. [CrossRef]
16. Spiteri, T.; Nimphius, S.; Wolski, A.; Bird, S. Monitoring Neuromuscular Fatigue in Female Basketball Players across Training and
Game Performance. J. Aust. Strength Cond. 2013, 21, 73–74.
17. Thomas, K.; Dent, J.; Howatson, G.; Goodall, S. Etiology and Recovery of Neuromuscular Fatigue after Simulated Soccer Match
Play. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 955–964. [CrossRef]
18. Schimpchen, J.; Wagner, M.; Ferrauti, A.; Kellmann, M.; Pfeiffer, M.; Meyer, T. Can Cold Water Immersion Enhance Recovery in
Elite Olympic Weightlifters? An Individualized Perspective. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1569–1576. [CrossRef]
19. Cook, C.J.; Beaven, C.M. Individual Perception of Recovery Is Related to Subsequent Sprint Performance. Br. J. Sports Med. 2013,
47, 705–709. [CrossRef]
20. Jiménez-Reyes, P.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V.; Ortega-Becerra, M.; Párraga, J.; González-Badillo, J.J. Jump Height
Loss as an Indicator of Fatigue during Sprint Training. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 39, 1–9. [CrossRef]
21. Carroll, T.J.; Taylor, J.L.; Gandevia, S.C. Recovery of Central and Peripheral Neuromuscular Fatigue after Exercise. J. Appl. Physiol.
2017, 122, 1068–1076. [CrossRef]
22. Balsom, P.D.; Seger, J.Y.; Sjodin, B.; Ekblom, B. Maximal-Intensity Intermittent Exercise: Effect of Recovery Duration. Int. J. Sports
Med. 1992, 13, 528–533. [CrossRef]
23. Balsom, P.D.; Seger, J.Y.; Sjödin, B.; Ekblom, B. Physiological Responses to Maximal Intensity Intermittent Exercise. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1992, 65, 144–149. [CrossRef]
24. Glaister, M. Multiple Sprint Work. Sport. Med. 2005, 35, 757–777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 2022, 10, 33 13 of 15

25. Thorpe, R.T.; Atkinson, G.; Drust, B.; Gregson, W. Monitoring Fatigue Status in Elite Team-Sport Athletes: Implications for
Practice. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 27–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Marcora, S.M.; Staiano, W.; Manning, V. Mental Fatigue Impairs Physical Performance in Humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 106,
857–864. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Twist, C.; Highton, J. Monitoring Fatigue and Recovery in Rugby League Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2013, 8, 467–474.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Taylor, K.-L.; Cronin, J.; Gill, N.; Chapman, D.; Newton, M. Fatigue Monitoring in High Performance Sport: A Survey of Current
Trends. J. Aust. Strength Cond. 2012, 20, 12–23.
29. Haddad, M.; Padulo, J.; Chamari, K. The Usefulness of Session Rating of Perceived Exertion for Monitoring Training Load despite
Several Influences on Perceived Exertion. Int. J. Sport. Perform. 2014, 9, 882–993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Impellizzeri, F.M.; Rampinini, E.; Coutts, A.J.; Sassi, A.; Marcora, S.M. Use of RPE-Based Training Load in Soccer. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 2004, 36, 1042–1047. [CrossRef]
31. McGuigan, H.; Hassmén, P.; Rosic, N.; Stevens, C.J. Training Monitoring Methods Used in the Field by Coaches and Practitioners:
A Systematic Review. Int. J. Sport. Sci. Coach. 2020, 15, 439–451. [CrossRef]
32. Brito, J.; Hertzog, M.; Nassis, G. Do Match-Related Contextual Variables Influence Training Load in Highly Trained Soccer
Players? J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 393–399. [CrossRef]
33. Morgan, W. Psychological Components of Effort Sense. Sience Sport. Exerc. Sept. 1994, 26, 1071–1077. [CrossRef]
34. Haff, G.; Triplett, T. Essential of Strength Training and Conditioning; National Strength and Conditioning Association:
Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
35. Fry, A.C.; Kraemer, W.J.; Stone, M.H.; Warren, B.J.; Fleck, S.J.; Kearney, J.T.; Gordon, S.E. Endocrine Responses to Overreaching
before and after 1 Year of Weightlifting. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 1994, 19, 400–410. [CrossRef]
36. West, D.J.; Finn, C.V.; Cunningham, D.J.; Shearer, D.A.; Jones, M.R.; Harrington, B.J.; Crewther, B.T.; Cook, C.J.; Kilduff, L.P.
Neuromuscular Function, Hormonal, and Mood Responses to a Professional Rugby Union Match. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 28,
194–200. [CrossRef]
37. Cormack, S.J.; Newton, R.U.; McGuigan, M.R. Neuromuscular and Endocrine Responses of Elite Players to an Australian Rules
Football Match. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2008, 3, 359–379. [CrossRef]
38. Elloumi, M.; Maso, F.; Michaux, O.; Robert, A.; Lac, G. Behaviour of Saliva Cortisol [C], Testosterone [T] and the T/C Ratio during
a Rugby Match and during the Post-Competition Recovery Days. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2003, 90, 23–28. [CrossRef]
39. Chowdhury, R.H.; Reaz, M.B.I.; Bin Mohd Ali, M.A.; Bakar, A.A.A.; Chellappan, K.; Chang, T.G. Surface Electromyography
Signal Processing and Classification Techniques. Sensors 2013, 13, 12431–12466. [CrossRef]
40. De Luca, C.J. The Use of Surface Electromyography in Biomechanics. J. Appl. Biomech. 1997, 13, 135–163. [CrossRef]
41. Cifrek, M.; Medved, V.; Tonković, S.; Ostojić, S. Surface EMG Based Muscle Fatigue Evaluation in Biomechanics. Clin. Biomech.
2009, 24, 327–340. [CrossRef]
42. Massó, N.; Rey, F.; Romero, D.; Gual, G.; Costa, L.; Germán, A. Surface Electromyography Applications. Apunt. Med. l’Esport
2010, 45, 121–131. [CrossRef]
43. Hogrel, J.Y. Clinical Applications of Surface Electromyography in Neuromuscular Disorders. Neurophysiol. Clin. 2005, 35, 59–71.
[CrossRef]
44. Garrett, J.; Graham, S.R.; Eston, R.G.; Burgess, D.J.; Garrett, L.J.; Jakeman, J.; Norton, K. A Novel Method of Assessment for
Monitoring Neuromuscular Fatigue in Australian Rules Football Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2019, 14, 598–605.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Gathercole, R.; Sporer, B.; Stellingwerff, Y.; Sleivert, G.G. Comparison of the Capacity of Different Jump and Sprint Field Tests to
Detect Neuromuscular Fatigue. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2522–2531. [CrossRef]
46. Marrier, B.; Meur, Y.L.; Robineau, J.; Lacome, M.; Couderc, A.; Hau, C. Quantifying Neuromuscular Fatigue Induced by an Intense
Training Session in Rugby Sevens. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 12, 218–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Roe, G.; Darrall-Jones, J.; Till, K.; Phibbs, P.; Read, D.; Weakley, J.; Jones, B. To Jump or Cycle? Monitoring Neuromuscular
Function in Rugby Union Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 12, 690–696. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Padulo, J.; Bragazzi, N.L.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Dello Iacono, A.; Attene, G.; Pizzolato, F.; Dal Pupo, J.; Zagatto, A.M.; Oggianu, M.;
Migliaccio, G.M. Repeated Sprint Ability in Young Basketball Players: Multi-Direction vs. One-Change of Direction (Part 1).
Front. Physiol. 2016, 7, 1–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Legg, J.; Pyne, D.; Semple, S.; Ball, N. Variability of Jump Kinetics Related to Training Load in Elite Female Basketball. Sports 2017,
5, 85. [CrossRef]
50. Heishman, A.; Miller, R.; Freitas, E.; Brown, B.; Daub, B.; Kaur, J.; Bemben, M. Monitoring External Training Loads and
Neuromuscular Performance for Division I Basketball Players over the Pre-Season. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. Conf. Proc. 2020, 19, 204–212.
[CrossRef]
51. Markovic, G.; Dizdar, D.; Jukic, I.; Cardinale, M. Reliability and Factorial Validity of Squat and Countermovement Jump Tests. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 2004, 18, 551–555. [CrossRef]
52. Fitzpatrick, J.F.; Hicks, K.M.; Russell, M.; Hayes, P.R. The Reliability of Potential Fatigue-Monitoring Measures in Elite Youth
Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 12, 1–5. [CrossRef]
Sports 2022, 10, 33 14 of 15

53. Ferioli, D.; Schelling, X.; Bosio, A.; La Torre, A.; Rucco, D.; Rampinini, E. Match Activities in Basketball Games. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 2020, 34, 172–182. [CrossRef]
54. Slinde, F.; Suber, C.; Suber, L.; Edwén, C.E.; Svantesson, U. Test-Retest Reliability of Three Different Countermovement Jumping
Tests. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 640–644. [CrossRef]
55. Richter, A.; Räpple, S.; Kurz, G.; Schwameder, H. Countermovement Jump in Performance Diagnostics: Use of the Correct
Jumping Technique. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2012, 12, 231–237. [CrossRef]
56. Byrne, P.J.; Moody, J.A.; Cooper, S.-M.; Kinsella, S. The Reliability of Countermovement Jump Performance and the Reactive
Strength Index in Identifying Drop-Jump Drop Height in Hurling Players. J. Exerc. Sport. Med. 2017, 1, 1–10.
57. Heishman, A.; Daub, B.; Miller, R.M.; Freitas, E.D.S.; Frantz, B.A.; Bemben, M.G. Countermovement Jump Reliability Performed
with and Without an Arm Swing in NCAA Division 1 Intercollegiate Basketball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 34, 546–558.
[CrossRef]
58. Petrigna, L.; Karsten, B.; Marcolin, G.; Paoli, A.; D’Antona, G.; Palma, A.; Bianco, A. A Review of Countermovement and Squat
Jump Testing Methods in the Context of Public Health Examination in Adolescence: Reliability and Feasibility of Current Testing
Procedures. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1384. [CrossRef]
59. Cormack, S.J.; Newton, R.U.; McGulgan, M.R.; Doyle, T. Reliability of Measures Obtained during Single and Repeated Counter-
movement Jumps. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2008, 3, 131–144. [CrossRef]
60. Harman, E. The Effects of Arms and Countermovement on Vertical Jumping. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 1990, 22, 825–833. [CrossRef]
61. Barker, L.A.; Harry, J.R.; Mercer, J.A. Relationships between Countermovement Jump Ground Reaction Forces and Jump Height,
Reactive Strength Index, and Jump Time. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 248–254. [CrossRef]
62. Carlos-Vivas, J.; Martin-Martinez, J.P.; Hernandez-Mocholi, M.A.; Perez-Gomez, J. Validation of the IPhone App Using the Force
Platform to Estimate Vertical Jump Height. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 2018, 58, 227–232. [CrossRef]
63. Heishman, A.; Brown, B.; Daub, B.; Miller, R.; Freitas, E.; Bemben, M. The Influence of Countermovement Jump Protocol
on Reactive Strength Index Modified and Flight Time: Contraction Time in Collegiate Basketball Players. Sports 2019, 7, 37.
[CrossRef]
64. Cohen, D.; Burton, A.; Wells, C.; Taberner, M.; Diaz, M.A.; Graham-Smith, P. Single vs. Double Leg Jump Tests. Aspetar Sport.
Med. J. 2020, 9, 34–41.
65. Tomasevicz, C.L.; Hasenkamp, R.; Ransone, J.W.; Jones, D. Optimal Depth Jump Height Quantified as Percentage of Athlete
Stature. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2019, 15, 1–10. [CrossRef]
66. Lees, A.; Vanrenterghem, J.; De Clercq, D. Understanding How an Arm Swing Enhances Performance in the Vertical Jump. J.
Biomech. 2004, 37, 1929–1940. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Hara, M.; Shibayama, A.; Takeshita, D.; Hay, D.C.; Fukashiro, S. A Comparison of the Mechanical Effect of Arm Swing and
Countermovement on the Lower Extremities in Vertical Jumping. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2008, 27, 636–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Ripley, N.; Mcmahon, J.J. Validity and Reliability of the PUSH Wearable Device to Measure Velocity and Power during Loaded
Countermovement Jumps. In Proceedings of the National Strength and Conditioning Association National Conference, New
Orleans, LA, USA, 6–9 July 2016.
69. Claudino, J.G.; Cronin, J.; Mezêncio, B.; McMaster, D.T.; McGuigan, M.; Tricoli, V.; Amadio, A.C.; Serrão, J.C. The Coun-
termovement Jump to Monitor Neuromuscular Status: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 397–402. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
70. Pino-Ortega, J.; García-Rubio, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. Validity and Reliability of the WIMU Inertial Device for the Assessment of the
Vertical Jump. PeerJ 2018, 2018, e4709. [CrossRef]
71. Attia, A.; Dhahbi, W.; Chaouachi, A.; Padulo, J.; Wong, D.P.; Chamari, K. Measurement Errors When Estimating the Vertical Jump
Height with Flight Time Using Photocell Devices: The Example of Optojump. Biol. Sport 2017, 34, 63–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Casartelli, N.; Müller, R.; Maffiuletti, N.A. Validity and Reliability of the Myotest Accelerometric System for the Assessment of
Vertical Jump Height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 3186–3193. [CrossRef]
73. Choukou, M.-A.; Laffaye, G.; Taiar, R. Reliability and Validity of an Accelerometric System for Assessing Vertical Jumping
Performance. Biol. Sport 2014, 31, 55–62. [CrossRef]
74. Stanton, R.; Wintour, S.-A.; Kean, C.O. Validity and Intra-Rater Reliability of MyJump App on IPhone 6s in Jump Performance. J.
Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 518–523. [CrossRef]
75. McMahon, J.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Lake, J.P.; Comfort, P. Understanding the Key Phases of the Countermovement Jump Force-Time
Curve. Strength Cond. J. 2018, 40, 96–106. [CrossRef]
76. Ferioli, D.; Bosio, A.; Bilsborough, J.C.; La Torre, A.; Tornaghi, M.; Rampinini, E. The Preparation Period in Basketball: Training
Load and Neuromuscular Adaptations. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 991–999. [CrossRef]
77. Linthorne, N.P. Analysis of Standing Vertical Jumps Using a Force Platform. Am. J. Phys. 2001, 69, 1198–1204. [CrossRef]
78. Borges, N.; Borges, L.; Dias, J.; Wentz, M.; Da Silva Mattos, D.; Petry, R.; Domenech, D. Validity of a New Contact Mat System for
Evaluating Vertical Jump. Motriz. Rev. Educ. Fis. 2011, 17, 26–32. [CrossRef]
79. Leard, J.S.; Cirillo, M.A.; Katsnelson, E.; Kimiatek, D.A.; Miller, T.W.; Trebincevic, K.; Garbalosa, J.C.; Leard, A.; Cirillo, M.;
Katsnelson, E.; et al. Validity of Two Alternative Systems for Measuring Vertical Jump Height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21,
1296–1299.
Sports 2022, 10, 33 15 of 15

80. Glatthorn, J.F.; Gouge, S.; Nussbaumer, S.; Stauffacher, S.; Imperllizzeri, F.M.; Maffiuletti, N.A. Validity and Realibility of
Optojump Photoelectric Cells for Estimating Vertical Jump Height. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 556–560. [CrossRef]
81. Balsalobre-Fernández, C.; Glaister, M.; Lockey, R.A. The Validity and Reliability of an IPhone App for Measuring Vertical Jump
Performance. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 1574–1579. [CrossRef]
82. Steinman, D.; Shirley, M.; Fuller, M.R.C. Validity and Reliability of Devices Measuring Countermovement Vertical Jump
Performance. Dep. Heal. Hum. Perform. Athl.—Hum. Perform. Lab. Abstr. 2018, 4, 1. [CrossRef]
83. Withmer, T.D.; Fry, A.C.; Forsythe, C.M.; Andre, M.J.; Lane, M.T.; Hudy, A.; Honnold, D.E. Accuracy of a Vertical Jump Contact
Mat for Determining Jump Height and Flight Time. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 877–881. [CrossRef]
84. Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Carvalho, T.; Fernandes, T.; Fonseca, P.; Rebelo, A. Countermovement Jump Analysis Using
Different Portable Devices: Implications for Field Testing. Sports 2018, 6, 91. [CrossRef]
85. Stanton, R.; Kean, C.O.; Scanlan, A.T. My Jump for Vertical Jump Assessment. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1157–1158. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
86. Sharp, A.; Cronin, J.; Neville, J. Using Smartphones for Jump Diagnostics: A Brief Review of the Validity and Reliability of the My
Jump App. Strength Cond. J. 2019, 41, 96–107. [CrossRef]
87. Lake, J.; Augustus, S.; Austin, K.; Mundy, P.; McMahon, J.; Comfort, P.; Haff, G. The Validity of the Push Band 2.0 during Vertical
Jump Performance. Sports 2018, 6, 140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Gallardo-Fuentes, F.; Gallardo-Fuentes, J.; Ramírez-Campillo, R.; Balsalobre-Fernández, C.; Martínez, C.; Caniuqueo, A.; Cañas,
R.; Banzer, W.; Loturco, I.; Nakamura, F.Y.; et al. Intersession and Intrasession Realiability and Validity of the My Jump App for
Measuring Different Jump Actions in Trained Male and Female Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 30, 2049–2056. [CrossRef]
89. Walsh, M.S.; Ford, K.R.; Bangen, K.J.; Myer, G.D.; Hewett, T.E. The Validation of a Portable Force Plate for Measuring Force-Time
Data during Jumping and Landing Tasks. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2006, 20, 730–734.
90. Farias, D.L.; Teixeira, T.G.; Madrid, B.; Pinho, D.; Boullosa, D.A.; Prestes, J. Reliability of Vertical Jump Performance Evaluated
with Contact Mat in Elderly Women. Scand. Soc. Clin. Physiol. Nucl. Med. 2013, 33, 1–5. [CrossRef]
91. Castagna, C.; Ganzetti, M.; Ditroilo, M.; Giovannelli, M.; Rocchetti, A.; Manzi, V. Concurrent Validity of Vertical Jump Performance
Assessment Systems. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 761–768. [CrossRef]
92. Torres-Ronda, L.; Schelling, X. Critical Process for the Implementation of Technology in Sport Organizations. Strength Cond. J.
2017, 39, 54–59. [CrossRef]
93. Wee, J.F.; Lum, D.; Lee, M.; Roman, Q.; Ee, I.; Suppiah, H.T. Validity and Reliability of Portable Gym Devices and an IPhone App
to Measure Vertical Jump Performance. Sport Perform. Sci. Rep. 2018, 44, 1–5.
94. Charlton, P.C.; Kenneally-Dabrowski, C.; Sheppard, J.; Spratford, W. A Simple Method for Quantifying Jump Loads in Volleyball
Athletes. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 241–245. [CrossRef]
95. Borges Moreira, A.; Bacchi, R.; Finotti, R.L.; Ramos, M.; Lopes, C.R.; Aoki, M.S. Validation of the VERT Wearable Jump Monitor
Device in Elite Youth Volleyball Players. Biol. Sport 2017, 34, 239–242. [CrossRef]
96. Halson, S.L. Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes. In Sports Medicine; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1 November 2014; pp. 139–147. [CrossRef]
97. Alderman, R.B. Influence of Local Fatigue on Speed and Accuracy in Motor Learning. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Heal. Phys. Educ. Recreat.
1965, 36, 131–140. [CrossRef]