A narrative review of running wearable measurement system accuracy and reliability: can we make running shoe prescription objective?

Abstract

1 run*.mp. (191128) 2 running.mp. or *Running/ (65348) 3 1 or 2 (191128) 4 insole.mp. (838) 5 IMU.mp. (870) 6 Wearable Electronic Devices/ or wearable.mp. (10889) 7 4 or 5 or 6 (12343) 8 kinetic.mp. or Kinetics/ (575422) 9 kinematic.mp. or *Biomechanical Phenomena/ (24482) 10 Accelerometry/ or acceler*.mp. (259557) 11 8 or 9 or 10 (842654) 12 3 and 7 and 11 (180)

The Use of Wearable Sensor Technology to Detect Shock Impacts in Sports and Occupational Settings: A Scoping Review

“…A systematic review from Ancillao et al [ 93 ] found sensors that allow direct measurements of GRF—such as insoles, wearable load cells, or ad hoc designed pressure sensing devices—to be more reliable than GRF predicted from IMU data. This is confirmed in a recent review by Blazey et al [ 87 ] who found instrumented insoles, in particular the Loadsol system, to offer a good in-field assessment tool. However, it is important to note that when sensors are worn under the foot, they compromise the foot–ground interaction, and the loads measured do not reflect the pressure absorbed by the tissue but rather the pressure on the device or the shoe to insole interface [ 87 , 93 ].…”

“…This is confirmed in a recent review by Blazey et al [ 87 ] who found instrumented insoles, in particular the Loadsol system, to offer a good in-field assessment tool. However, it is important to note that when sensors are worn under the foot, they compromise the foot–ground interaction, and the loads measured do not reflect the pressure absorbed by the tissue but rather the pressure on the device or the shoe to insole interface [ 87 , 93 ]. It is further emphasized that even if there is a correlation between predicted and directly measured GRF, it is difficult to estimate the absolute value of the peak force.…”

“…This demonstrates a lack of consensus on sensor placement in the literature, which can make comparisons between studies very challenging. From the already mentioned review, Sheerin et al also state that tibial acceleration measured by distally attached sensors gives higher values, which is a notion that is supported by Blazey et al [ 87 ], who conclude that current evidence suggest IMU devices should be placed and fixated on the distal tibia. It should finally be noted that bone-mounted accelerometers have been shown to have the highest association with vertical load rates from force plates, with correlations of r = 0.97.…”

“…In a recent review concerning measurements of tibial acceleration during running, Sheerin et al [ 85 ] point out that different placements of accelerometers do not necessarily give comparable results. Furthermore, whether triaxial or uniaxial accelerometers are used will be of relevance, as accurate measurements from an uniaxial accelerometer is dependent on precise alignment along the long axis of the tibia [ 87 ]. Acceleration of the tibia occurs in three dimensions: axial, anteroposterior, and mediolateral.…”

Monitoring and Predicting Health Status in Neurological Patients: The ALAMEDA Data Collection Protocol

“…Measurements are sent with a frequency of up to 200 Hz, over a Bluetooth connection, to the user's smartphone. These insoles are used to study walking and running gaits in real-world settings [41,42]. In the ALAMEDA pilot studies, the insoles can readily provide accurate measurements related to gait metrics, such as step number, cadence, step cycle time, loading rate, factor of imbalance (disproportionate loading of one foot compared to the other), or peak push force.…”