Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Performance and outcome measures data of each movement trial for both the straight punch and defensive kick techniques

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27984v1/supp-1

Checkpoints and associated components of the Krav Maga techniques, outlined by events

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27984v1/supp-2

Outcome measures of both Krav Maga techniques, outlined by events

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27984v1/supp-3

Summary of strike technique performance and outcome measures (mean ± SE) across Timepoints with groups collapsed

Baseline assessment - immediately before initial training sessions; Reassessment #1 (RT1) - immediately after initial training session; Reassessment #2 (RT2) - five days after RT1; Reassessment #3 (RT3) - seven days after RT2. Light-shade is significantly different from no-shade, and dark-shade is significantly different from both light-shade and no-shade.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27984v1/supp-4

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Vincenzo E. Di Bacco conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Mehran Taherzadeh conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Olivier Birot conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

William H. Gage conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The York University Research Ethics Review board granted approval for the study (Certificate #: 2016-367).

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are provided in supplementary file 1.

Funding

This work was supported by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (No. 12914). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies