Table 2. Methodological characteristics of studies included in our analysis.
| Study | Reference number | Objective | Moves | Measurement and Equipment | Variable of interest | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akpinar et al., 2015 | 38 | Examined the handedness and performance asymmetries in fencers | N/A | Motion capture (Flock of Birds) | Movement speed | As compared to fencers, non-fencers showed greater inter-limb differences in error making and pointing path deviation under the non-choice condition (p<0.01). |
| Movement time | ||||||
| Movement accuracy (point error) | ||||||
| Movement quality (path deviation from linearity) | Fencers used less right arm to reach middle and left regions under the choice condition (17.0%-23.5% less). | |||||
| Aquili et al., 2013 | 14 | Time-motion characteristics of saber fencing | Complete bout | Motion capture (Casio & Dartfish) | Time-motion parameters (the type and quantity of actions during the bouts) | There were gender differences in saber data. Males were faster and more frequent in attacking (action/break ratio: 1:6.5 VS 1:5.1, lunge frequency: 23.9/s VS 20.0/s, time of direction change: 65.3s VS 59.7s). |
| In both sexes, the percentage of offensive action (49% - 55%) was higher than for defensive action (26% - 31%). The number of lunges was high compared to the number of changes in direction. | ||||||
| Bottoms et al., 2013 | 16 | Identified the kinematic determinants of lunge performance | Lunge | Motion capture (Qualisys) | Kinematics | The average sword velocity was 12.8±3.3m/s, Knee range of motion (30.7°±10.7°) and peak hip flexion of the trailing leg (9.7°±10.9°), and peak hip flexion of the leading leg (102.0°±13.0°) were significant predictors of sword velocity (R2 = 0.14–0.36, p<0.01). |
| Regression analysis for lunge performance | ||||||
| Chang et al., 2009 | 22 | Determine appropriate foil handle shape which could reduce the load on grip force | Quarte sixte | EMG measurement (Biometrics) | Muscle activity | The defensive position has no significant effects on muscle activity (p = 0.39). Activity of the adductor pollicis and the extensor carpi radialis (average value = 0.16±0.02) was significantly lower when using the Poistol-Viscounti in comparison to other types of handles. |
| Cronin et al., 2003 | 31 | Identified the strength qualities predictive of lunge performance | Lunge | Squat performance (Fitness Works) | Squat strength and velocity | The average lunge velocity was 1.62±0.21m/s (concentric velocity), The best three predictors of lunge velocity (R2 = 0.85, p<0.05) were time to peak squat force (0.48±0.07s), leg length (83.9±5.2cm), and flexibility (171.0±12.5cm). |
| Explosive strength | ||||||
| Lunge test (Unimeasure) | Regression analysis for lunge performance | When lunge velocity was normalized by body mass, the three best predictors (R2 = 0.87, p<0.05) were time to peak squat force, mean squat power (364.0±96.8W) and relative squat strength (1.65±0.32kg/body mass). | ||||
| Do and Yiou, 1999 | 42 | Examine the effects of anticipatory postural adjustments on fencing speed | Touche | Force plate (Unspecified) | Displacement of the foot | In lunge + touche condition, when touche was initiated (onset of anterior deltoid) before the postural adjustment of lunge (200ms prior to foot off), touche speed was comparable to that in the isolated touche condition. |
| Accelerometer (Entran) | Acceleration of the foil | |||||
| Lunge | EMG measurement (Unspecified) | Muscle activity | When touche was initiated during postural adjustment, touche speed dropped. The average touche speed was significantly lower when executed at the time of foot off (2.19±0.52m/s VS 2.54±0.44m/s, p<0.01) than that in the isolated touche condition. | |||
| Frère et al., 2011 | 17 | Classify fencers based on kinematics and muscular activation pattern | Fleche | Motion capture (Vicon) | Kinematics | Experienced and elite fencers did not differ significantly in their anthropometries. |
| EMG measurement (Noraxon) | Muscle activity | Fencers were firstly sorted into two groups based on the timing of maximal elbow extension (MEE, early group: 0.20±0.06s, late group: 0.47±0.03s). | ||||
| Further EMG-based classification was performed to the two groups. The results showed that early MEE group exhibited higher deltoid intensity (91±18%) than late MEE group (36±13%) in attacking (p<0.05). Spherical classification confirmed that muscular activity was different based on the strategies used in the two groups. | ||||||
| Geil, 2002 | 20 | Effects of different footwear on plantar pressure | Advance | Motion capture (Peak Performance) | Kinematics | The court shoes significantly reduced plantar pressure by 15.37–26.38% as compared to the fencing shoes in all fencing movements. |
| Lunge | Plantar pressure (Pedar) | Plantar pressure | Pressures were consistently higher at the front foot. The major pressured regions are the front heel and back medial forefoot (average pressure normalized by body mass: 0.0611–0.0862N/kg∙cm2). | |||
| Fleche | The court shoes altered fencers’ kinematics by increasing the range of motion of the weapon hand. The consistency of repeated movement and lunge velocity also reduced in course shoes condition. | |||||
| Gholipour et al., 2008 | 25 | Compared the kinematics of fencers at different levels | Lunge | Motion capture (Kinemetrix) | Kinematics | Elite fencers had a higher mean lunge length (1.17±0.17m VS 1.02±0.10m), larger late-phase knee extension (51±9° VS 18±8°), and shorter time gap in hand/foot motion (0.07±0.05s VS 0.13±0.15s) in comparison to the novice fencers. |
| Greenhalgh et al., 2013 | 27 | Effects of sports surface on impact shock during a fencing movement | Lunge | Accelerometer (Biometrics) | Impact shock | Significantly larger impact shock magnitude (F = 17.07, p<0.001) was identified during a lunge on the concrete-based surface (14.9±8.5g) compared with the wooden-based surface (range: 11.1–12.0g). Use of a ‘piste’ had no significant effect on the overall impact shock magnitude (p = 0.38–0.69). |
| Gresham-Fiegel et al., 2013 | 32 | Effects of trail leg displacement angle on lunge performance | Lunge | Power measurement (TENDO Weightlifting Analyzer) | Lunge power and velocity | For all fencers, their natural trail leg displacement angles were 68° to 100°, 60% of them had a forward deviation, 12% had a perpendicular stance, and 28% had a backward deviation. |
| A perpendicular placement (90°) of the feet produced the greatest average power (411.1±97.8W) and velocity (0.59±0.11m/s) during lunging, while forward deviation (45°) produced the lowest values (336.8±70.2W in power, 0.49±0.09m/s in velocity). | ||||||
| Guilhem et al., 2014 | 28 | Investigated the coordination of the leg muscles in fencing execution | Advance lunge | Dynamometer (CMV) | Muscle strength and activity | Concentric contraction tests showed that peak torque produced by hip extensors (221.1±64.0N∙m) and knee extensors (173.4±33.9 N∙m) were significantly greater in the front leg than the rear leg. The front ankle dorsiflexor torque was 20% stronger than the rear leg on the whole range of motion. |
| EMG measurement (Zerowire) | Lunge displacement | |||||
| Force plate (Kistler) | E The fencers reached their peak velocity (2.6±0.9m/s) at the early phase 4 of lunge, while peak acceleration (6.5±0.9m/s), force (469.6±77.4N), and power (1051.8±231.5W) occurred in the middle of phase 3. | |||||
| Knee extensors of the trailing leg were mainly activated (25.3%-35.1% more than the front leg) during propulsive phases, and less activated than that of the front leg (10.4% more than the trailing leg) during the braking phase. | ||||||
| Hip extensors of the leading leg were mainly activated (54.1% more than the trailing leg) during the final braking phase. | ||||||
| Hip and knee extensors and ankle plantarflexors were earlier activated in the trailing leg, while ankle dorsiflexors were earlier activated in the front leg. | ||||||
| Gutierrez-Davila et al., 2013 | 33 | Effects of target change on fencing performance | Lunge | Motion capture (Vicon) | Kinematics | A change in target location significantly increased the reaction time (by 28±32ms), movement time (by 69±50ms), the time used in acceleration (by 43±49ms), and errors made (by 18±19%) during lunge, while it also decreased the attacking velocity (by 0.33±0.35m/s) and action time in front foot (by 0.083±0.023s). |
| Force plate (IBV) | Kinetics | |||||
| Time-motion parameters | ||||||
| Gutierrez-Davila et al., 2013 | 29 | Examined the differences between elite and medium fencers in response to changed lunge target | Lunge | Motion capture (Vicon) | Kinematics | Elite fencers generated higher flight time (36±37ms VS -2±12ms), late-phase horizontal foot velocity (4.56±0.75m/s VS 3.59±0.30m/s), sword velocity (2.55±0.42m/s VS 1.88±0.48m/s), and lunge length (1.40±0.15m VS 1.13±0.13m) as compared to the medium-level fencers. |
| Force plate (IBV) | Kinetics | |||||
| Time-motion parameters | Elite fencers made fewer errors (31±17% VS 43±12%) and maintained better arm-foot timing sequence in responses to target change. | |||||
| Hassan and Klauck, 1998 | 18 | Evaluate the fencing lunge movement based on quantitative analysis | Lunge | Motion capture (SELSPOT II) | Kinematics | The maximal horizontal foil velocity was 3.40–3.91m/s, horizontal foil velocity at hit time was 2.96–3.56m/s, and maximal horizontal hip velocity was 2.28–2.33m/s across four subjects. |
| Irurtia et al., 2008 | 26 | Assessed the anthropometry and limb asymmetry in Spanish junior fencers | N/A | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Male fencers showed significantly (p = 0.01–0.05) larger forearm and thigh girths, as well as higher thigh muscle cross-sectional area (236±26 vs. 212±19cm2) on the armed side than the Spanish reference population, while females fencers did not exhibit the advantages. |
| No inter-limb significant differences were identified in both genders. | ||||||
| Kim et al., 2015 | 36 | Effects of a specific training program in improving muscle imbalance | N/A | Motion capture (Motion Analysis Corporation) | Dispersion of center of mass and center of pressure | Fences showed significant improvement in mediolateral sway of the non-dominant leg during one-leg standing (8.55±4.46cm/fl VS 7.95±1.52cm/fl), mediolateral sway during deep squats (14.76 ±7.18cm/fl VS 9.95±2.54cm/fl) and the balance scale after (3.14±1.72 VS 1.81±0.92) training. |
| Force plate (Kistler) | Balance score | |||||
| Lin et al., 2010 | 21 | Evaluated the workload of the wrist muscles for different foil handle types | Quarte sixte | EMG measurement (Biometrics) | Muscle activity | The Viscounti-type handle elicited the most equal load distribution for all muscle groups in comparison to other handle types. However, Adductor pollicis and extensor carpi radialis were more activated in Viscounti-type handle condition (p = 0.011–0.017) and may be more vulnerable to fatigue. |
| Handle angles for 21° and 24° increased risks of muscle fatigue, Grip strength was highest (8.66–9.52 (unknown unit)) at the two handle angles (p = 0.029). | ||||||
| Margonato et al, 1994 | 23 | Investigate the bilateral differences in forearm muscle trophism and force | N/A | Anthropometric measurement | Dynamometer (Lafayette Instruments) | Fencers exhibited significant differences in cross-sectional area (51.7±8.2cm2 VS 45.8±7.8cm2) and isometric force (502±126N VS 449±115N) of the forearm between the dominate and non-dominate side (p<0.001). |
| Fencers and the control groups were not significantly different on non-dominate side regarding muscular force and trophism. | ||||||
| The absolute gains in muscular force and trophism of the dominate side were greater in fencers than the control group (5.9cm2 VS 2.0cm2, 53N VS 15N). | ||||||
| Morris et al., 2011 | 15 | Investigated the characteristics of two fencing movements | Lunge | Motion capture (Vicon) | Kinematics | During the lunge, the ankle plantarflexors and knee extensors of the trailing leg contributed significantly to the attack. On the other hand, ankle plantarflexors and extensors of the hip and knee of both limbs contributed significantly to the progression of fleche. (Results are displayed by graphs only). |
| Fleche | Force plate (Unspecified) | Kinetics | ||||
| Mulloy et al., 2015 | 37 | Determined the kinematic chain in lunge | Lunge | Motion capture (Motion Analysis Corporation) | Kinematics | Expert fencers exhibited greater peak sword velocity (3.21±0.22m/s VS 2.63±0.29m/s), lunge distance (1.12±0.07 leg length VS 0.83±0.15 leg length), and peak ankle extension velocity (564±132°/s VS 273±184°/s). |
| The sequential motion of the hip-knee-ankle sequential is more tightly coupled in elite than in non-elite fencers, allowing elite fencers to achieve greater ankle extension and forward sword velocity. (sequence identified by graphic comparison). | ||||||
| Poulis et al., 2009 | 48 | Examined the asymmetry of muscle strength in fencers | N/A | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Fencers had greater knee extension torque (112.3–221.4Nm VS 111.7–210.4Nm), flexion torque (66.9–119.7Nm VS 62.3–112.4Nm), and flexor/extensor peak torque ratio (F = 3.04–3.79, p = 0.01–0.03) compared to the non-fencer group, in regardless of the differences in angular velocity (30°/s, 60°/s, and 240°/s). |
| Strength test (Cybex) | Isokinetic strength | The differences in peak torque between the dominant and non-dominant legs were not significant in both groups. | ||||
| Sinclair and Bottoms, 2015 | 45 | Determined sex-differences in joint loading during lunge | Lunge | Motion capture (C-Motion) | Kinematics | Female fencers had significantly greater peak knee extension moment (2.05±0.22Nm∙kg VS 1.72±0.25Nm∙kg), patellofemoral joint contact force (2.90±0.58BW VS 2.18±0.43BW), and contact force loading rate (22.12±5.74BW/s VS 14.14±6.36BW/s) in comparison to male fencers. |
| Force plate (Kistler) | Kinetics | |||||
| Joint loading | ||||||
| Sinclair et al., 2010 | 7 | Effects of footwear on shock attenuating | Lunge | Accelerometer (Biometrics) | Impact shock | Traditional fencing shoes significantly increased the magnitude of peak impact shock in comparison to sports shoes that had shock absorbing qualities (p<0.01). |
| Sinclair and Bottoms, 2013 | 30 | Investigated sex-differences in fencing kinematics and kinetics | Lunge | Motion capture (C-Motion) | Kinematics | FWhen variables were normalized by body weight., there were no significant inter-gender differences in both kinetics and kinematics except that, female fencers had significantly greater peak hip (42.79±12.42° VS 51.64±10.25°) and knee abduction angles (1.91±6.44° VS -8.99±4.91°) in comparison to male fencers. |
| Force plate (Kistler) | Kinetics | |||||
| Sterkowicz-Przybycień, 2009 | 13 | Body composition and somatotype of male fencers | N/A | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Fencers were characterized by higher mesomorphy and lower ectomorphy (p<0.05) compared to untrained males. Fencers' somatotypes differed from that of the untrained (3.3–4.8–2.3 vs. 3.7–4.3–3.1). |
| Fencers using sabers were relatively heavier (84.4kg VS 74.9–77.9kg) and had higher mesomorphy (3.4–5.4–1.8 VS 3.6–4.9–2.5 and 2.9–4.2–2.8) than fencers using two other types of weapons. | ||||||
| Steward and Kopetka, 2005 | 24 | Kinematic determinants of lunge speed | Lunge | Motion capture (Peak Motus) | Kinematics | Lunge velocity was significantly correlated to the time-to-peak angular velocity of the trailing knee (p = 0.022) and leading elbow (p = 0.047). |
| Regression analysis for lunge performance | ||||||
| Trautmann et al., 2011 | 3 | Determined the foot loading characteristics of three fencing movements | Lunge | Plantar pressure (Pedar) | Plantar pressure | For the leading leg, the heel was predominately loaded during lunge (peak pressure: 551.8±113.9kPa, contact time: 705.4±166.9ms) while its hallux was more loaded during retreating movements (peak pressure: 341.0±122.4kPa, contact time: 205.0±43.0ms). |
| Advance | Time-force parameters | For the trailing leg, the forefoot was generally loaded across the three different fencing movements (peak pressure: 170.2–352.7kPa, contact time: 191.8–682.2ms). | ||||
| Retreat | ||||||
| Tsolakis et al., 2006 | 51 | Investigated the anthropometric profile of young fencers | N/A | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | There were generally no significant differences between male and female fencers in all age group in terms of anthropometric measurements. |
| The mean somatotype of male fencers was 3.1–2.6–3.2 as compared to 3.8–14.8–3.3 in females. Female fencers were mainly situated in the ectomorph region. | ||||||
| Cross-sectional area of the arms was higher in males compared to females and higher on the dominant side compared to the non-dominant side. | ||||||
| Tsolakis et al., 2006 | 49 | Effects of a conditioning program to peripubertal fencers | N/A | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Increases in anthropometries, hormone level, and handgrip strength were detected in both groups. However, differences between fencers and the inactive children were not significant (p>0.05). |
| Blood sampling | Hormones concentrations | |||||
| Not fencing specific physical test (Psion XP) | Muscle strength | |||||
| Physical performance | ||||||
| Tsolakis et al., 2010 | 34 | Investigated selected correlates of fencing performance | Lunge | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Lunge time was best predicted (R2 = 0.42, p = 0.001) by drop jump performance (30.5±8.58cm) and thigh cross-sectional area (205.3±38.50cm2). When lunge time was normalized by body mass, only performance on the arm-driven counter-movement jump (37.7±9.26cm) was predictive of lunge time (R2 = 0.71, p<0.001). |
| Not fencing specific physical test (Psion XP) | Physical performance | |||||
| Lunge test (Polifermo Radio Light) | Regression analysis for lunge performance | |||||
| Turner et al., 2016 | 47 | Determined physical characteristics that underpinned lunge performance | Lunge | Anthropometric assessment | Anthropometries | Standing broad jump (177.7±0.32cm) was the strongest predictor of lunge velocity (3.35±0.70m/s, R2 = 0.507, p<0.001) and change of direction speed (5.45±0.65m/s, R2 = 0.425, p<0.001). |
| Not fencing specific physical test (Optijump) | Physical performance | |||||
| Lunge test (Casio) | Regression analysis for lunge performance | |||||
| Williams and Walmsley, 2000 | 67 | Compare response profile between novice and elite fencers under several levels of target choice | Lunge | EMG measurement (Medicotest) | EMG signals timing | The elite fencers showed superiority over the novice fencers in reaction time (32-33ms less), total response time (19-23ms less), onset of activation in anterior deltoid (37-45ms less) and front rectus femoris (52-55ms less) in regardless of the changed target conditions (F = 10.29–34.46, p<0.05). |
| Timing record | Timing parameters | Increased target number slightly elongated reaction time and delayed the onset of muscle activation for all fencers. However, the differences were not significant in both elite and novice groups. | ||||
| Elite fencers made fewer errors (11 VS 70) in hitting target than the novice fencers (X2 = 12.18, p = 0.002). | ||||||
| For both groups, the within-subject correlation was 75% (all variables of interest), indicating inter-trial consistency of movement pattern. | ||||||
| Williams and Walmsley, 2000 | 39 | Compare response timing and muscle coordination between different fencers under target changing condition | Lunge | EMG measurement (Medicotest) | EMG signals timing | Elite fencers showed shorter reaction time (333±128ms, 40% of total response time VS 613±62ms, 66% of total response time) and total response time (808±53ms VS 934±34ms) in response to changed target. |
| Timing record | Timing parameters | Elite fencers exhibited faster activation of selected muscle groups (178-378ms VS 301-617ms) in comparison to the novice fencers. | ||||
| Lunge distance measurement | Lunge distance | Elite fencers exhibited more coherent muscle synergy and consistent patterns of muscle coordination (rear knee extensor-front shoulder extensor-front knee extensor-front knee flexor). | ||||
| Wylde, 2013 | 12 | Time-motion analysis of foil fencing | Complete bout | Time-motion analysis (Sportstec) | Movement timing | High-intensity movements had a mean duration of 0.7s and accounted for 6.2% of the total bout time in elite women foil fencing. |
| Movement duration | The work: recovery ratio of female’s foil (15-touch) was 1:1.1, which was similar to that of men’s epee (1:1), men’s foil (1:3), and men’s epee (8:10). | |||||
| For the 5-touch and team bouts the work: recovery ratio was 1:1, indicating an increased duration of moderate- and high-intensity movements. | ||||||
| Yiou and Do, 2000 | 40 | Examine the differences between singular and combined training strategy of fencing performance | Touche | Force plate (Unspecified) | Foot pressure | There were no significant differences in body acceleration and peak velocity between the elite and novice fencers when touche and lunge were executed separately. |
| Accelerometer (Entran) | Acceleration of body center | |||||
| Lunge | EMG measurement (Unspecified) | Muscle activity | Elite fencers exhibited higher foil velocity (2.90±0.30m/s VS 2.66±0.29m/s) and postural velocity (0.41±0.20m/s VS 0.05±0.09m/s) in the sequential touché + lunge condition compared to the isolated touché condition, while no significant differences emerged for novice fencers. | |||
| Yiou and Do, 2001 | 41 | Examined the effects of “refractory period” on fencing movement | Touche | Force plate (Unspecified) | Displacement of the foot | There were no significant differences in postural velocity, speed performance, speed of focal movement, onset of anterior deltoid, and time of target hit between the elite and novice fencers in isolated touche condition. |
| Accelerometer (Entran) | Acceleration of the foil | |||||
| Lunge | EMG measurement (Unspecified) | Muscle activity | In lunge + touche condition, when the signal of touche was initiated more than 300ms prior to foot-off, there were no significant differences between groups. When touche was initiated within 200ms prior to foot-off or at the time of postural adjustment, speed performance and speed of focal movement were significantly higher in elite fencers. | |||
| Maximum speed of touché was higher in elite fencers than in novice |
Notes: N/A, not available.