# The Effect of Neuromuscular Fatigue on the Spatiotemporal Coordination of Rowing
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Timepoint** & **Joint** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Minimum ROM** \\ **(deg)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum ROM** \\ **(deg)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Range of Motion** \\ **Mean (deg)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Pre} & Ankle & \(-50.97\pm 5.47\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(23.83\pm 3.49\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 74.80 \(\pm\) 3.70\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & Hip & \(24.23\pm 4.42\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 117.79 \(\pm\) 6.08\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 93.56 \(\pm\) 3.04\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\  & Knee & \(15.98\pm 3.13\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 134.68 \(\pm\) 1.93\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 118.70 \(\pm\) 4.58\({}^{\text{c}}\) \\  & Lumbar & \(16.50\pm 3.59\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 44.87 \(\pm\) 2.90\({}^{\text{d}}\) & 28.37 \(\pm\) 2.75\({}^{\text{d}}\) \\  & Shoulder & \(-33.21\pm 3.14\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & 101.99 \(\pm\) 3.22\({}^{\text{e}}\) & 135.20 \(\pm\) 4.96\({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Post} & Ankle & \(-43.95\pm 4.31\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 21.41 \(\pm\) 3.03\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 65.36 \(\pm\) 1.96\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & Hip & \(32.07\pm 2.30\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 126.03 \(\pm\) 3.33\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 93.97 \(\pm\) 2.43\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Knee & \(16.60\pm 1.51\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 137.30 \(\pm\) 1.72\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 120.71 \(\pm\) 2.19\({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Lumbar & \(19.42\pm 3.21\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 46.29 \(\pm\) 3.22\({}^{\text{d}}\) & 26.87 \(\pm\) 1.53\({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Shoulder & \(-31.97\pm 2.93\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 100.55 \(\pm\) 1.86\({}^{\text{e}}\) & 132.52 \(\pm\) 3.38\({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Average \(\pm\) standard deviation minimum, maximum, and flexion–extension range of motion for the shoulder, lumbar spine, hip, knee, and ankle. Note: positive values denote flexion relative to neutral and negative values denote extension. Note that elements within each column with similar letters do not differ significantly (i.e., \(p\) \(>\) 0.05). suggests that the lumbar spine leads both the drive and recovery movements and has a fundamental role in the initiation (i.e., acceleration and deceleration) of the multi-segment spatiotemporal coordination of a rowing stroke. The assessment of joint posture throughout the row suggests that the lumbar spine, hip, and knee are more flexed relative to a standing neutral posture, while the shoulder and ankle are more extended at the finish position. Further, the overall joint ROM was larger for the shoulder, knee, and hip joints relative to the ankle and lumbar, but the relative ROM did not change when fatigued. Previous work has shown an increase in posterior pelvic tilt at the catch position [18] and increased thoracic curvature with muscle fatigue [12]; however, to the authors' knowledge, no research has assessed the whole-body spatiotemporal coordination of a rowing movement. This study fills that gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the coordination patterns across multiple joints and how these are affected by fatigue. Collectively, the results summarized above suggest a distinct spatiotemporal coordination pattern between the shoulder, lumbar spine, hip, knee, and ankle during a rowing movement; however, the coordination pattern remained unchanged from the start to the end of the fatigue-inducing rowing bout. Although insignificant results were seen pre- vs. post-trial, these results suggest that changes to the spatiotemporal coordination of rowing could occur with fatigue. The results presented here suggest small pre/post trends in the MARP, DP, R\({}_{\text{XY}}\) lag, and joint posture outcomes; however, it is likely that individual factors prohibit the analysis of group effects. Specifically, the individual values of each participant showed a mix of responses (i.e., Figure 2), resulting in a non-significant difference between the timepoints.