2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.09.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison and update of direct kinematic-kinetic models of leg stiffness in human running

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
28
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
28
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although, previous literature 29 , 30 indicate a very good agreement in the CoM movement obtained using the 3D approach and the force plate method, no studies have compared the results of these two techniques when running in shoes with different cushioning properties. Finally, of note is that although our leg stiffness values are well in line with other studies 26 , 30 , 31 using the direct 3D method, they are generally 25–55% greater than those 21 23 , 32 calculated with a traditional spring-mass model 19 , 20 . This discrepancy arises primarily from a much lesser leg compression values in studies using the direct 3D method (~7–9 cm) versus those using a traditional spring-mass model (~12–14 cm) rather than differences in the GRF.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Although, previous literature 29 , 30 indicate a very good agreement in the CoM movement obtained using the 3D approach and the force plate method, no studies have compared the results of these two techniques when running in shoes with different cushioning properties. Finally, of note is that although our leg stiffness values are well in line with other studies 26 , 30 , 31 using the direct 3D method, they are generally 25–55% greater than those 21 23 , 32 calculated with a traditional spring-mass model 19 , 20 . This discrepancy arises primarily from a much lesser leg compression values in studies using the direct 3D method (~7–9 cm) versus those using a traditional spring-mass model (~12–14 cm) rather than differences in the GRF.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Using a spring-mass model 26 , we determined the stiffness of the runner’s leg during the ground contact when wearing MAX shoes and CON shoes. The results revealed a significant main effect ( p = 0.007) for shoe conditions, showing greater leg stiffness for the subjects running with MAX shoes (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Leg stiffness (Kl) was calculated at the frame where leg length reached its minimum, and defined as the component of GRF directed from the center of pressure (CoP) to the hip joint center (Fe) divided by the change in leg length (Le) 73 . Leg length was defined as the linear distance between the CoP and the hip joint center 74 . Joint stiffness (Ktors) at the hip, knee, and ankle was calculated and defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum joint moment divided by the corresponding change in joint angle 25 .…”
Section: Biomechanical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%