## 4 Discussion  
The aim of the present study was to identify differences in acceleration and MV by adding WBV and a stick while players performed a skating exercise on an SVB. Significant differences were reported between the dominant and non-dominant legs in peak AceIT and SampEn. On the other hand, there were differences between conditions (NVNS, NVS, VNS and VS) in mean AceIT and SampEn. Specifically, in the mean AceIT, there were differences in the NVS vs. VNS and VS. conditions. On the other hand, there were differences in the NVNS vs. VNS and VS conditions, as well as between the NVS and VNS conditions. Considering the above, the inclusion of vibration produces an increase in MV, which would be in line with previous studies [31]. The time for each sliding action was similar in all conditions analysed. Thus, it could be an indicator that participants had enough experience to execute the task in the imposed rhythm with competence. In this way, it was intended to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Condition I**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Condition II**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CI (95\%)**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & **Lower** & **Upper** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Peak AceIT (g)} & NVS & 0.120 & 0.945 & \(-\)0.10 & 0.34 \\ \cline{3-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.030 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.25 & 0.19 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & VS & 0.080 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.14 & 0.31 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.150 & 0.464 & \(-\)0.37 & 0.07 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VS & \(-\)0.037 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.26 & 0.19 \\ \cline{2-8}  & VNS & VS & 0.113 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.11 & 0.34 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Mean AceIT (g)} & NVS & NVS & 0.021 & 0.259 & \(-\)0.06 & 0.05 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.021 & 0.259 & \(-\)0.05 & 0.00 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.009 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.01 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.043 & 0.001 ** & \(-\)0.07 & 0.01 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VS & \(-\)0.030 & 0.028 * & 0.05 & 0.00 \\ \cline{2-8}  & VNS & VS & 0.012 & 1.000 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{SampEn (u.a.)} & NVS & NVS & \(-\)0.001 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.02 & 0.02 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.062 & \(<\)0.001 ** & \(-\)0.09 & 0.03 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.075 & \(<\)0.001 ** & \(-\)0.10 & 0.04 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.061 & \(<\)0.001 ** & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.03 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VS & \(-\)0.074 & \(<\)0.001 ** & \(-\)0.10 & \(-\)0.04 \\ \cline{2-8}  & VNS & VS & \(-\)0.013 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.01 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Sliding Action Time (s)} & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.003 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.04 \\ \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & 0.006 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.05 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & \(-\)0.006 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.05 & 0.03 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VNS & 0.009 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.05 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & NVS & VS & \(-\)0.003 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.04 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & VNS & VS & \(-\)0.012 & 1.000 & \(-\)0.05 & 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis of differences between conditions (NVNS, NVS, VNS and VS). ensure that the time series exported from each condition had a similar length and quantity of data. In addition, this assured us that the changes found between conditions were not determined by the execution speed but by the variations in the conditions. Some authors propose that off-ice tests have limited utility [11]. Test batteries are extensively described [43], but their weak predictive validity, particularly due to potential lack of specificity to on-ice demands, has been demonstrated [44]. Similarly, training protocols often involve running drills without stick carrying, forgetting potential technical adaptations resulting from equipment limitations in a real match scenario [45]. In the present study, WBV was used on an SVB with the aim of executing a gesture similar to constant gliding on ice.